Tag Archives: SJV

Virgina Kostman v. Bella Tierra Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H084-REL
Agency —
Tribunal —
Decision Date 2026-01-09
Administrative Law Judge SJV
Outcome Petitioner's petition is affirmed.
Filing Fees Refunded —
Civil Penalties —

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Virginia Kostman Counsel —
Respondent Bella Tierra Community Association Counsel —

Alleged Violations

No violations listed

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

25F-H084-REL Decision – 1373536.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:55:27 (69.4 KB)

25F-H084-REL Decision – 1384451.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:55:30 (100.6 KB)

25F-H084-REL Decision – 1392666.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:55:33 (45.7 KB)

Administrative Briefing: Kostman v. Bella Tierra Community Association (No. 25F-H084-REL)

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative hearing and subsequent decision in the matter of Virginia Kostman v. Bella Tierra Community Association. The dispute centered on a $20 delinquency fee assessed against a homeowner following a chaotic transition between property management companies.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled in favor of the Petitioner, Virginia Kostman, finding that the Bella Tierra Community Association (Respondent) violated its own Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by deeming a payment delinquent when it had been sent to the address provided on the official billing statement. The final order mandated the removal of the delinquency fees and required the Respondent to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee. Subsequent filings indicate the Respondent has failed to comply with the reimbursement order.

Case Overview

• Petitioner: Virginia Kostman

• Respondent: Bella Tierra Community Association

• Management Entities: Platinum Management, Inc. (former); Agave Management Solutions (current).

• Primary Issue: Violation of CC&R Article 6.9.1 regarding the assessment of delinquency and late fees.

• Docket Number: 25F-H084-REL

• Hearing Date: December 30, 2025

Factual Background and Timeline

The dispute originated from the abrupt closure of the Association’s management firm and subsequent communication failures during the transition.

The Management Transition

• December 2024: Platinum Management, Inc. issued the first quarter 2025 assessment bills, which were due January 1, 2025. The bills directed homeowners to send payments to Platinum’s address.

• December 17, 2024: Platinum Management abruptly ceased operations.

• January 2025: Agave Management Solutions, founded by a former Platinum executive assistant, assumed management duties.

• Early January 2025: Agave mailed notices to homeowners regarding an updated mailing address for payments.

The Payment Conflict

• January 31, 2025: Petitioner initiated a bank bill-pay for the assessment. Because she had already received the December bill directing payment to Platinum, the payment was sent to the old address.

• March 4, 2025: Petitioner received notice from her bank—not the Respondent—that the check had been returned and destroyed due to an incorrect address.

• April 3, 2025: Petitioner attempted to notify the Respondent of the issue via their online portal. The Respondent claimed they did not receive this message because the portal was not yet fully operational.

• June 2025: Respondent assessed two delinquency fees totaling $20.00 to the Petitioner’s account for the “unpaid” January assessment.

• July 2025: Petitioner paid the January assessment a second time to resolve the balance.

Analysis of Arguments

Petitioner’s Position

Virginia Kostman argued that she was never delinquent because she followed the instructions provided on the official billing statement. She characterized the HOA’s actions as a “campaign of harassment” and an “extortion racket,” alleging that the management company knowingly assessed fees on homeowners who were victims of the management company’s own relocation errors.

Key Quotes from Petitioner:

• “I paid that assessment the minute I got the bill on time to the correct address. It’s a misstatement of fact to characterize it as an unpaid bill.”

• “They’ve been doing it knowingly… this was not a mistake. This was done on purpose.”

• “Being delinquent still prevents me from voting for the new HOA board… It is entirely possible they’re just doing this on purpose to keep me from being able to vote.”

Respondent’s Position

The Association, represented by counsel Eric O’Connor and witness Sarah Malovich (CFO of Agave Management), argued that the Petitioner was technically delinquent because the payment was not “received” by the current management by the January 31 deadline. They maintained that the delinquency fees were merely pass-through costs for administrative work (sending letters) and not penalties.

Key Quotes from Respondent Representatives:

• Eric O’Connor: “This case does not involve a refusal to accept the payment, a failure to communicate, or an improper assessment of penalties. It involves a delayed payment made unintentionally… and an association that exercised patience.”

• Sarah Malovich: “A delinquency fee is a fee that is charged to the association when letters have to go out to the homeowners… we add that fee to the homeowner’s account so that when the homeowner pays, the association recoups the money.”

Governing Provisions: CC&R Article 6.9.1

The hearing focused on the interpretation of Article 6.9.1, which states:

• Any assessment not paid within 15 days of the due date is deemed delinquent.

• Delinquent assessments bear interest at 12% per annum.

• The Board may establish a late fee not to exceed $15 or 10% of the unpaid amount.

• Late fees may only be imposed after providing notice to the owner that the assessment is overdue.

Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Decision

The ALJ, Sondra J. Vanella, concluded that the Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated the CC&Rs.

Findings of Fact

1. Fault of Respondent: The ALJ found that the lack of receipt was due to the “abrupt change in management companies” and not any error by the Petitioner.

2. Timeliness: Because the Petitioner initiated payment by January 31 (the date the HOA considered payments “past due”), and sent it to the only address she had been officially provided at the time of the bill’s issuance, the payment was considered timely.

3. Communication Failures: The Respondent failed to respond to the Petitioner’s April 2025 email and did not notify her of the missing payment until the April statement. The ALJ noted it was “reasonable for Petitioner to have attempted to communicate via the portal in April 2025.”

Final Order

• Affirmation: The Petition was affirmed.

• Fee Removal: Respondent was ordered to remove the $20.00 in delinquency fees from Petitioner’s account.

• Reimbursement: Respondent was ordered to reimburse Petitioner for the $500.00 filing fee.

• Compliance: Respondent was directed to comply with CC&R Article 6.9.1 moving forward.

Post-Hearing Developments

On February 4, 2026, the Petitioner filed an inquiry with the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) stating that the HOA was not responding to her requests for the $500.00 payment ordered by the Judge. The OAH issued a Minute Entry stating it could not provide legal advice or take further action regarding a “writ of execution,” as its jurisdiction ended with the issuance of the final order.

Study Guide: Virginia Kostman v. Bella Tierra Community Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative hearing and subsequent legal decision regarding Case No. 25F-H084-REL. It examines the nuances of community association management, the application of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), and the procedural mechanics of the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings.

Part 1: Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences based on the provided source context.

1. What specific violation did the Petitioner allege against the Bella Tierra Community Association?

2. How did the timing of Platinum Management’s closure affect the January 2025 assessment payments?

3. What is the legal “burden of proof” in this administrative matter, and who was responsible for meeting it?

4. What was the distinction made by the Respondent’s witness between an “HOA late fee” and a “delinquency fee”?

5. On what date did the Petitioner initiate her bank payment, and why was this date significant to the Respondent’s argument?

6. Why did the Respondent claim they never received the Petitioner’s April 3, 2025, communication?

7. What was the Petitioner’s primary concern regarding her “delinquent” status beyond the $20 fee?

8. What did the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determine regarding the responsibility of the management transition?

9. What was the final order regarding the $500 filing fee and the delinquency fees?

10. How did the ALJ respond to the Petitioner’s February 4, 2026, inquiry regarding a “writ of execution”?

——————————————————————————–

Part 2: Answer Key

1. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent violated CC&R Article 6.9.1 by failing to deposit her timely assessment payment and subsequently assessing improper delinquency and late fees. She argued that the management company returned her check without notification and refused to communicate for months despite her efforts to resolve the issue.

2. Platinum Management mailed the January 2025 billings in December 2024 but abruptly closed on December 17, 2024, shortly after the invoices were sent. Because the bills contained the old address for Platinum, payments sent by homeowners were returned or destroyed, as the new company, Agave Management, did not have a forwarding system fully in place at that time.

3. The burden of proof was upon the Petitioner, Virginia Kostman, to establish her case by a “preponderance of the evidence.” This standard requires the Petitioner to show that the facts she seeks to prove are more probable than not.

4. Sarah Malovich testified that a late fee is a penalty for delinquent assessments allowed by state statute and CC&Rs, which remains with the association as income. In contrast, a delinquency fee is a “pass-through” cost charged by the management company to the association to cover the expense of sending collection letters.

5. The Petitioner’s bank records showed the payment was initiated on January 31, 2025. The Respondent argued this was untimely because assessments were due January 1, while the ALJ eventually noted that the Association considered payments past due only after January 31, rendering the payment timely.

6. The Respondent claimed the management portal, Vanica, was brand new and not fully operational until April 1, 2025. Sarah Malovich testified that she never received the message and suggested that the transition from using QuickBooks to a formal portal may have caused communication gaps.

7. The Petitioner was concerned that being labeled “delinquent” would strip her of her right to vote during the transition of control from the builder to the homeowners. She argued that the management company was intentionally maintaining her delinquent status to exclude her from participating in the new HOA board elections.

8. The ALJ concluded that it was incumbent upon the Respondent to ensure no interruptions occurred during the management transition. Since the Respondent issued the billing with the Platinum Management address and did not notify residents of the change until January, the failure to receive the payment was not due to any error by the Petitioner.

9. The ALJ affirmed the Petitioner’s petition and ordered the Respondent to reimburse the $500 filing fee. Additionally, the Respondent was ordered to remove the delinquency fees from the Petitioner’s account and comply with CC&R 6.9.1 moving forward.

10. The ALJ issued a Minute Entry stating the office would not consider the inquiry because it was inappropriately sent to the OAH or no further action could be taken. The judge clarified that the Office of Administrative Hearings cannot provide legal advice to litigants.

——————————————————————————–

Part 3: Essay Questions

Instructions: Use the source materials to develop comprehensive responses to the following prompts. (No answers provided).

1. Systemic Failures in Management Transitions: Analyze how the transition from Platinum Management to Agave Management Solutions created a “perfect storm” of administrative errors. Discuss the responsibilities of a community association to maintain continuity of service and communication during a change in leadership.

2. The Interpretation of CC&R 6.9.1: Examine the language of Article 6.9.1 as provided in the judge’s decision. Evaluate how the specific wording regarding “notice” and “delinquency” applied to the facts of the Kostman case.

3. Good Faith vs. Strict Liability: The Respondent argued they acted in “good faith” and exercised “patience” by waving certain fees, while the Petitioner argued they acted in “bad faith” to prevent her from voting. Compare these two perspectives using evidence from the hearing transcripts.

4. Due Process in Administrative Hearings: Describe the procedural steps of the hearing as outlined by Judge Vanella, including the role of opening statements, witness testimony, cross-examination, and the admission of evidence. How do these procedures ensure a fair outcome for self-represented litigants?

5. Financial and Legal Remediation: Discuss the significance of the ALJ’s final order. Why is the reimbursement of a filing fee sometimes considered a more significant remedy than the removal of the original disputed fees?

——————————————————————————–

Part 4: Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official who presides over federal or state agency hearings, such as Sondra J. Vanella in this matter.

A.R.S. § 32-2199

The Arizona Revised Statute giving the Department of Real Estate jurisdiction to hear disputes between property owners and community associations.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions; the governing documents that dictate the rules and financial obligations of a planned community.

Delinquency Fee

A fee charged to an association by a management company for the administrative cost of sending past-due notices, often passed through to the homeowner.

Department of Real Estate

The state agency responsible for overseeing real estate licenses and homeowner association disputes in Arizona.

Late Fee

A penalty fee (limited to $15 or 10% of the assessment in this case) charged to an owner for failing to pay an assessment on time.

Minute Entry

A brief written record of a court’s or judge’s decision, order, or direction that does not constitute a full formal opinion.

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

An independent agency authorized to conduct hearings for contested matters arising out of state regulation.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition or complaint; in this case, Virginia Kostman.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in civil cases, meaning the evidence shows that a fact is “more probable than not.”

Respondent

The party against whom a petition or complaint is filed; in this case, Bella Tierra Community Association.

Writ of Execution

A court order granted to put in force a judgment of possession obtained by a plaintiff from a court.

The $20 Fee That Cost $500: A Masterclass in Standing Up to HOA Bureaucracy

1. Introduction: The Homeowner’s Nightmare

Imagine doing everything right: you receive a bill, you mail your payment to the address provided, and you assume the matter is settled. Then, months later, you discover you have been labeled “delinquent.” You try to call; no one answers. You use the company’s own online portal to explain the situation, and your message vanishes into a digital black hole. While you are being ghosted, the fees continue to pile up.

This was the reality for Virginia Kostman, a homeowner in Tucson’s Bella Tierra community. What began as a routine quarterly assessment spiraled into a legal battle over a $20 “delinquency fee.” In a display of sheer investigative grit, Kostman paid a $500 filing fee to take her Homeowners Association (HOA) to the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. Her story is more than a dispute over pocket change; it is a masterclass in how to dismantle bureaucratic gaslighting and hold faceless management companies accountable.

2. Takeaway 1: You Aren’t Responsible for “Management Ghosting”

The conflict began during a chaotic shell game between management firms. In late 2024, Platinum Management—the company then representing the community—abruptly closed its doors on December 17th. This was a week after bills were sent but before the January 1st due date, effectively setting a trap for every resident who followed the instructions on their statement.

A “new” firm, Agave Management Solutions, took over in January 2025. Investigative scrutiny reveals the players didn’t actually change: Agave was founded by Jaimie Petty, who had been the executive assistant to the owner of the defunct Platinum Management. Despite this “same players, different name” reality, Agave penalized Kostman because her check arrived at Platinum’s shuttered office. Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella ruled that the burden of business continuity rests on the HOA, not the resident.

3. Takeaway 2: The “Portal” is a Digital Shield for Incompetence

When Kostman realized her payment hadn’t been processed, she attempted to use Agave’s online portal to resolve the issue. On April 3rd, she sent an email through the site. Agave’s Chief Financial Officer, Sarah Malovich, later testified that the company never received the message because the company was “still getting up and running.”

The investigative “smoking gun” lies in the contradiction of Malovich’s own testimony. She claimed the portal went live on April 1st, yet suggested a message sent two days later on April 3rd vanished because of technical infancy. Agave created a digital black hole, then penalized a homeowner for falling into it. This discrepancy highlights a systemic HOA tactic: using “new technology” as a shield for administrative incompetence while continuing to issue automated delinquency notices.

4. Takeaway 3: “Delinquency” is a Political Tool, Not Just a Financial One

The most alarming revelation from the hearing transcripts is that this $20 fee was a gatekeeping mechanism. The Bella Tierra HOA was transitioning from “builder control” (KB Homes) to homeowner control. Under the community’s governing documents (CC&R 6.9.1), any homeowner labeled as “delinquent” can be barred from voting for the new HOA board.

Kostman’s testimony revealed a struggle for democracy. She feared the Petty family—acting as agents for KB Homes—was using the $20 delinquency status to silence dissent and prevent homeowners from voting them out. This elevates the case from a petty fee dispute to a David vs. Goliath battle over community governance. When an HOA labels you delinquent over a disputed $20, they aren’t just taking your money; they are taking your voice.

5. Takeaway 4: The $500 Gamble for a $20 Injustice

To a casual observer, spending $500 to dispute $20 is a mathematical failure. To a consumer advocate, it is a strategic strike. By paying the filing fee for an Administrative Hearing, Kostman forced the HOA to hire expensive legal counsel and defend their “extortion racket” (as she termed it) in a court of record.

The gamble paid off. Judge Vanella didn’t just order the removal of the $20 delinquency fees; she ordered the HOA to reimburse Kostman for the $500 filing fee. By standing her ground, Kostman turned the tables, making the Association’s predatory administrative practices a net financial loss for them.

6. Takeaway 5: The Court’s Cold Shoulder: When a Win is Just a Piece of Paper

Winning in court is only half the battle; collecting the judgment is the other. A “Minute Entry” filed in February 2026—over a month after the final order—revealed that the HOA had still not paid the $500 reimbursement. When Kostman asked the court how to file a “writ of execution” to force payment, the court’s response was a chilling reminder of the limits of the legal system.

The Judge noted that the court could not provide legal advice and that Kostman’s inquiry “will not be considered.” This is the sobering reality of consumer litigation: even with a signed order from an Administrative Law Judge, a recalcitrant board can remain defiant, leaving the homeowner holding a “paper victory” while the HOA ignores the debt.

7. Conclusion: The Power of the Paper Trail

Virginia Kostman’s victory rested on a single, unassailable fact: she kept the receipts. She produced a bank bill-pay record initiated on January 31st, proving her intent to pay the address provided on the only official bill she had received. Without that digital and paper trail, the management company’s ledger would have been the final word.

In an era of shifting management companies and automated portals that “malfunction” at convenient times, are you keeping the records necessary to protect your home? As this case proves, a $20 fee isn’t always about the money—it’s about control. And as of February 2026, with the HOA still refusing to cut the check, the question remains: are you prepared for the long game required to actually get paid?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Virginia Kostman (Petitioner)
    Self-represented homeowner

Respondent Side

  • Eric P. O'Connor (Counsel)
    Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
    Attorney representing the Bella Tierra Community Association
  • Sarah Malovich (Witness)
    Agave Management Solutions
    Chief Financial Officer for the respondent's management company

Neutral Parties

  • Sondra J. Vanella (Administrative Law Judge)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Presiding judge over the matter

Kevin W. Schafer & Patricia A. Lawton vs Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, INC.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H027-REL
Agency —
Tribunal —
Decision Date 2025-08-06
Administrative Law Judge SJV
Outcome Petition dismissed. No action required of Respondent.
Filing Fees Refunded —
Civil Penalties —

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Unknown Counsel Craig L. Cline
Respondent Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, Inc. Counsel —

Alleged Violations

No violations listed

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

25F-H027-REL Decision – 1275948.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:37:42 (49.4 KB)

25F-H027-REL Decision – 1275971.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:37:45 (8.8 KB)

25F-H027-REL Decision – 1297318.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:37:49 (49.2 KB)

25F-H027-REL Decision – 1302228.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:37:53 (49.4 KB)

25F-H027-REL Decision – 1302231.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:37:57 (8.6 KB)

25F-H027-REL Decision – 1336572.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:38:01 (212.3 KB)

Briefing on the Administrative Hearing: Schafer & Lawton v. Sycamore Springs HOA

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the administrative hearing and final decision in the matter of Kevin W. Schafer & Patricia A. Lawton v. Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, Inc. (No. 25F-H027-REL). The dispute centered on two core issues: the Homeowners Association’s (HOA) alleged failure to properly prepare, retain, and provide mandatory corporate records, and its alleged misinterpretation of governing documents concerning the installation of a security camera by the petitioners.

Following a hearing on July 22, 2025, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Sondra J. Vanella issued a decision on August 6, 2025, dismissing the petition in its entirety. The ALJ concluded that the petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof on all allegations.

Key findings indicate that the HOA’s explanations for delays and missing records—namely, a difficult transition between management companies and a tax filing extension—were deemed reasonable. Regarding the security camera, the ALJ determined that the device constituted a nuisance to a neighbor, a finding within the HOA board’s discretion, and upheld the HOA’s requirement for a Design Modification Request (DMR). The decision affirmed the respondent’s central legal argument distinguishing the duty to “keep” records from a requirement to “take” them.

Case Overview

Case Name

Kevin W. Schafer & Patricia A. Lawton, Petitioners, v. Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, Inc., Respondent.

Case Number

25F-H027-REL

Tribunal

State of Arizona, Office of Administrative Hearings

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella

Hearing Date

July 22, 2025

Decision Date

August 6, 2025

Petitioners

Kevin W. Schafer & Patricia A. Lawton (Represented by Craig Cline, Esq.)

Respondent

Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, Inc. (Represented by Nikolas Thompson, Esq.)

The matter was subject to several continuances at the request of the Respondent, moving the final hearing date to July 22, 2025.

Core Allegations and Disputed Issues

The dispute was formally divided into two primary areas of contention, each involving alleged violations of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) and the HOA’s governing documents (CC&Rs and Bylaws).

Issue 1: Records and Document Management

• Petitioners’ Allegations: The HOA systematically failed to follow governing documents and state laws regarding the preparation, retention, and fulfillment of owner requests for mandatory records. This included the failure to provide five specific sets of board meeting minutes and the annual financial compilations for fiscal years 2022 and 2023 in a timely manner. Petitioners argued this constituted a breach of fiduciary duty and a violation of multiple statutes and bylaws.

• Respondent’s Position: The HOA contended that governing documents and statutes require them to keep records of minutes taken, but not to take minutes for every meeting. This interpretation was based on advice from legal counsel. They argued that most documents were available on the homeowner portal and that the failure to produce one specific set of minutes (December 2023) was due to them being lost by a previous “garbage” management company. The delay in providing the 2023 financial compilation was attributed to a reasonable circumstance: an extension filed for the association’s taxes.

Issue 2: Security Camera Installation

• Petitioners’ Allegations: The HOA misinterpreted its own CC&Rs by requiring a DMR for the petitioners’ security camera. Petitioners argued that Article IX, Section 18 of the CC&Rs provides a specific “carve out” for “security devices used exclusively for security purposes.” They further contended they were being targeted, as the HOA had no history of enforcing such a requirement for security cameras until after their device was installed and a neighbor complained.

• Respondent’s Position: The HOA board interpreted the CC&R “carve out” as applying only to sound-emitting devices (e.g., alarms, bells), as the clause is situated within a paragraph on noise nuisances. They argued a security camera is an “attachment to an existing structure,” which requires approval from the Architectural Control Committee under a separate CC&R article. Furthermore, the installation created a nuisance by invading a neighbor’s privacy, obligating the board to act. The HOA asserted that all homeowners, including the board president, were subsequently required to submit DMRs for their cameras to ensure consistent enforcement.

Key Testimony and Evidence

Patricia Lawton (Petitioner)

• A former HOA board president for three years, Ms. Lawton testified to having an expert-level understanding of the governing documents.

• Regarding records, she stated that of five requested sets of board minutes, only one was provided, and it was delivered late. She claimed she never received the 2022 financial compilation, only tax returns, and that the 2023 compilation was not provided within the statutorily required timeframe.

• She disputed the validity of the HOA’s tax-extension excuse, testifying that the association operates on a cash basis of accounting, which should not have prevented the timely completion of the compilation.

• She testified that due to security concerns (fear of being hacked), she does not have a registered account for the homeowner portal and accesses it through other community members.

• On the security camera, she asserted it was a residential-grade device installed in response to trespassing and property damage. She maintained that the CC&Rs provided a clear exemption and that the HOA’s enforcement action was retaliatory and inconsistent with historical practice.

Kristen Rowlette (HOA Board President)

• Ms. Rowlette testified that critical documents, including the December 2023 minutes, were lost during a problematic transition from a prior management company, Adams LLC, to the current one, Mission Management. She stated Ms. Lawton was aware of these difficulties as she attended every board meeting.

• She admitted that the board made a decision to stop taking minutes for meetings where no votes were held. She stated this was done on the advice of legal counsel (Smith and Wamsley) and was a direct response to feeling “inundated with requests from Patricia.”

• Regarding the camera, she testified that the issue arose only after a neighbor filed a formal complaint citing privacy concerns for their children. She described visiting the neighbor’s property and observing the camera’s “eye” actively tracking her movements.

• She confirmed that following the complaint, the board, on legal advice, required all homeowners to retroactively submit DMRs for any existing security cameras to ensure uniform enforcement.

Central Legal Arguments

The “Keep” vs. “Take” Debate

The primary legal conflict regarding the meeting minutes centered on the interpretation of a single word.

• Petitioners’ Argument: Counsel for the petitioners argued that the phrase “keep the minutes” must be interpreted through a “common sense application,” meaning “maintaining a written record of proceedings and decisions.” It was described as a standard practice for nonprofit organizations for decades, and the respondent’s narrow definition was “overly simplistic.”

• Respondent’s Argument: Counsel for the HOA focused on a strict textual interpretation. He argued, “they cannot point to any language in any of the governing documents in any of the statutes that requires associations to take minutes. It just doesn’t exist. What they’ve done is they’ve conflated the word keep… to mean take.” He cited dictionary definitions to assert that “keep” means to hold, maintain, or retain, not to create.

The Security Camera “Carve Out”

The dispute over the camera hinged on whether it fell under an exception in the nuisance clause of the CC&Rs.

• Petitioners’ Argument: Article IX, Section 18 exempts “security devices used exclusively for security purposes” from the general prohibition on sound devices. Petitioners argued their camera fit this description, and this carve-out, combined with a total lack of historical enforcement or specific design guidelines for cameras, meant a DMR was not required.

• Respondent’s Argument: The exemption is located in a provision focused on noise nuisances (“speakers, horns, whistles, bells or other sound devices”). The board’s interpretation was that the exception logically applies only to sound-emitting security devices like driveway alarms. The camera, as a physical modification, was governed by architectural rules requiring a DMR and was also subject to the board’s “sole discretion” to determine if it constituted a nuisance to neighbors.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale

The ALJ dismissed the petition, finding the petitioners failed to establish their claims by a preponderance of the evidence.

Rationale on Issue 1 (Records)

Alleged Violation

ALJ Conclusion

Rationale

A.R.S. §§ 10-11601, 10-11620 (Corporate Records)

No Jurisdiction

The tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to Title 33 (planned communities) and does not extend to these Title 10 (nonprofit corporations) statutes.

A.R.S. § 33-1805 (Records Availability)

No Violation

Respondent made records “reasonably available.” The loss of minutes during a management transition and the delay of financials due to a tax extension were deemed reasonable explanations.

A.R.S. § 33-1810 (Annual Audit)

No Violation

The request was made in 2024, entitling petitioners only to 2023 statements. The CC&Rs require owners to pay for audited statements, which petitioners did not offer to do.

CC&R Article X Section 3 & Bylaws Article 10.3 (Inspection)

No Violation

These provisions govern the inspection of documents. Petitioners requested copies without offering to pay for reproduction and never formally requested an in-person inspection.

Bylaws Articles 7.6.3, 7.6.4, 5.1 (Secretary/Treasurer Duties, Meetings)

No Violation

Petitioners failed to provide sufficient evidence that the Secretary or Treasurer failed in their duties or that meetings were not held as required.

Rationale on Issue 2 (Camera)

Alleged Violation

ALJ Conclusion

Rationale

CC&Rs Art. IX §§ 10, 18 (Nuisance)

No Violation

The CC&Rs grant the Board “sole discretion” to determine the existence of a nuisance. The ALJ found the evidence credible that the camera invaded the neighbor’s privacy, thus creating a nuisance.

CC&Rs Art. XI § 1 (Enforcement)

No Violation

Petitioners were notified of their right to a hearing before the Board. The HOA’s request for a DMR was a reasonable enforcement action applied to all community members.

CC&Rs Art. XI § 5 (Notice by Mail)

Technical Violation, No Harm

While there may have been a “technical violation” of the certified mail requirement, the ALJ found that the “Petitioners clearly received all notices” and were not prejudiced.

Study Guide: Schafer & Lawton v. Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative hearing between Kevin W. Schafer and Patricia A. Lawton (Petitioners) and the Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, Inc. (Respondent). It analyzes the legal arguments, statutory interpretations, and the final judicial determination regarding homeowner association (HOA) governance and architectural control.

Case Overview: Docket No. 25F-H027-REL

The matter was heard before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Sondra J. Vanella at the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The dispute centered on two primary categories of alleged violations: the management of association records and the regulation of homeowner security devices.

Key Entities and Figures
  • Petitioners: Kevin W. Schafer and Patricia A. Lawton, long-term residents and former board members of Sycamore Springs.
  • Respondent: Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, Inc.
  • ALJ: Sondra J. Vanella.
  • Key Witnesses: Patricia Lawton (Petitioner) and Kristin Rowlette (HOA Board President).
  • Management Company: Mission Management (current); Adams LLC (former).

Core Themes and Legal Disputes

1. Books and Records Management

The Petitioners alleged that the HOA failed to prepare, retain, and provide mandatory records, specifically board meeting minutes and financial compilations.

  • The "Take" vs. "Keep" Debate: A central legal argument concerned A.R.S. § 10-11601 and § 33-1805. The Respondent argued that while statutes require an HOA to keep records of minutes that are taken, there is no statutory language requiring an association to create or take minutes for every meeting. The board testified they stopped taking full minutes—recording only votes—on the advice of counsel to reduce the administrative burden caused by frequent record requests.
  • Financial Compilations: Petitioners cited A.R.S. § 33-1810, which requires a financial audit, review, or compilation within 180 days of the fiscal year's end. The Respondent argued that delays for the 2023 fiscal year were reasonable due to a tax filing extension.
  • Availability vs. Delivery: The Respondent emphasized that documents were made "available" via a homeowners portal. The ALJ noted that Petitioners never officially requested an "inspection" of records at the office, which is the specific procedure outlined in the Bylaws and CC&Rs.
2. Security Devices and Architectural Control

The second issue involved a violation notice and fine issued to the Petitioners for installing a security camera without submitting a Design Modification Request (DMR).

  • The "Carve-Out" Argument: Petitioners relied on CC&R Article IX, Section 18, which prohibits sound devices "except security devices used exclusively for security purposes." They argued this created a "safe harbor" or "carve-out" that exempted security cameras from board approval.
  • Nuisance and Privacy: The Respondent argued that the camera—described as a "Walmart-style" globe camera—was a nuisance because it possessed 360-degree tracking capabilities and overlooked a neighbor’s backyard and hot tub, causing privacy concerns.
  • Architectural Improvements: The HOA contended that under CC&R Article V, Section 3, any "attachment to an existing structure" requires written approval from the Architectural Control Committee.

Summary of Administrative Law Judge Decision

On August 6, 2025, the ALJ issued a decision dismissing the Petition. The ruling was based on the following conclusions:

Issue ALJ Conclusion
A.R.S. Title 10 Violations Inapplicable; the OAH only has jurisdiction over Title 33 (Planned Communities) in these matters.
Meeting Minutes No violation; the HOA provided minutes that existed. Misplaced records due to a management transition were deemed a reasonable explanation.
Financial Records No violation; tax extensions provided a justifiable reason for delays, and Petitioners failed to pay for audited statements as required.
Security Camera No violation; the camera was deemed a nuisance under CC&R Article IX, Section 18, and the HOA was within its rights to require a DMR for any exterior attachment.
Due Process/Fines No violation; although there was a technical notice error (not sent via certified mail), the Petitioners admitted to receiving the notices and were offered a hearing.

Short-Answer Practice Questions

  1. What is the "burden of proof" in this administrative hearing, and who carries it?
  • Answer: The burden of proof is a "preponderance of the evidence," and it is carried by the Petitioners.
  1. How did the Respondent justify the board's decision to stop taking comprehensive meeting minutes?
  • Answer: They argued that A.R.S. § 10-11601 only requires corporations to keep minutes that are taken, not to create them for every meeting. They decided to only record votes to streamline operations.
  1. According to the HOA board, why were the 2023 financial compilations delayed?
  • Answer: The association received an extension to file its 2023 taxes, and the accountant required those finalized taxes to complete the compilation.
  1. What specific physical characteristic of the Petitioners' camera led the Board President to label it a nuisance?
  • Answer: The camera had a tracking "eye" and a 360-degree rotation that followed people and overlooked the neighbor’s private backyard and hot tub.
  1. Why did the ALJ dismiss the allegations regarding A.R.S. § 10-11601 and § 10-11620?
  • Answer: The ALJ concluded these statutes were outside the purview of the tribunal, as the OAH adjudicates complaints specifically regarding Title 33 and planned community documents.

Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

  1. The Interpretation of "Keep" vs. "Take": Evaluate the Respondent's argument that an HOA is not legally required to create minutes of every meeting. Does this interpretation align with the fiduciary duties of a board to its members? Support your argument using the definitions provided in the hearing (e.g., Black's Law Dictionary or Webster’s).
  2. Homeowner Security vs. Community Privacy: Analyze the conflict between a homeowner's right to secure their property (using the "carve-out" in Article IX, Section 18) and the association’s duty to prevent nuisances. Where should the line be drawn regarding cameras that overlook neighboring properties?
  3. Procedural Fidelity in HOA Governance: The ALJ noted a "technical violation" regarding how notices were mailed (standard email vs. certified mail). Discuss the importance of strict adherence to governing documents versus the "reasonable notice" standard applied by the judge in this case.

Glossary of Important Terms

  • A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes): The codified laws of the state of Arizona.
  • Administrative Law Judge (ALJ): A judge who moves to resolve disputes between government agencies and citizens, or in this case, homeowners and associations.
  • Bylaws: The rules adopted by an organization for its internal management and government.
  • CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions): The governing documents that dictate the rules for a real estate development or planned community.
  • DMR (Design Modification Request): A formal application a homeowner must submit to an HOA board or architectural committee before making changes to the exterior of their property.
  • Executive Session: A portion of a board meeting that is closed to the general membership, typically used for legal or personnel matters.
  • Preponderance of the Evidence: The standard of proof in civil cases, meaning that the evidence shows a fact is "more probably true than not."
  • Pro Forma Operating Statement: A financial document (budget) prepared for each fiscal year to be distributed to members.
  • Safe Harbor/Carve-Out: A provision in a statute or contract that protects a party from liability or requirements if certain conditions are met.

The HOA Battleground: Lessons from the Sycamore Springs Dispute

In the high-stakes world of community governance, disputes often transcend simple disagreements, evolving into what legal counsel in the Sycamore Springs matter described as "tactical litigation." This was the reality for Kevin Schafer and Patricia Lawton in their five-year saga against the Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association (HOA). Despite having prevailed in a prior Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) matter against the same Association, the Petitioners found themselves back in the courtroom on July 22, 2025, in a case (No. 25F-H027-REL) defined by "toxicity" and deep-seated neighborhood friction.

The conflict centered on two primary grievances: a perceived lack of transparency regarding missing board minutes and financial records, and the installation of a high-tech, "Walmart-style" security camera that neighbors claimed invaded their private backyard sanctuary. By analyzing the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) final ruling, we can extract essential lessons for homeowners and board members navigating the intersection of state statutes and community CC&Rs.

The Paper Trail: When Records Go Missing

The Petitioners alleged a systemic failure by the Board to prepare and produce five sets of meeting minutes and two years of financial compilations (2022 and 2023). While the Petitioners relied on both Title 10 (non-profit corporation law) and Title 33 (planned community law) to support their claims, the ALJ provided a critical jurisdictional clarification: Title 10 statutes (specifically A.R.S. §§ 10-11601 and 10-11620) were found inapplicable to this matter, as Title 33 governs planned community records (Conclusion of Law #5).

The following table synthesizes the arguments and the HOA's defenses:

Petitioners' Claims Respondent's Defense
Missing Minutes: Failure to provide five sets of minutes within the 10-day window per A.R.S. § 33-1805. Records Lost: 2022 minutes were lost during the transition from Adams LLC to Mission Management. The Board argued they only "keep" what they "take."
2022 Compilation: Petitioners never received the 2022 financial compilation; they were only provided tax reports. Oversight: The HOA argued tax returns were provided as a substitute; the Petitioner failed to notify the Board the compilation was missing (Finding of Fact #21).
2023 Compilation: Failure to provide records within the 180-day statutory window. Tax Extensions: The HOA argued they only owe the immediately preceding fiscal year (2023) and that a tax extension provided a "reasonable delay."
"No Minutes" Policy: The Board claimed they only take minutes when a vote occurs, based on counsel from Smith and Wamsley. Procedural Failure: The HOA argued the 10-day clock was never triggered because the Petitioners never offered to pay for copies or requested an inspection.

The Verdict on Transparency: Why the "How" Matters

The ALJ ultimately dismissed the records violation claims, but not necessarily because she endorsed the Board's "no minutes" theory. Instead, the ruling hinged on a procedural failure by the Petitioners. Under A.R.S. § 33-1805 and Bylaws Article 10.3, there is a sharp legal distinction between "requesting copies" and "requesting an inspection."

The court noted that the Petitioners requested copies via email but never formally requested a physical inspection at the Association's office. Most importantly, the Petitioners failed to offer payment for the "reasonable cost of reproduction" (Conclusion of Law #10). This nuance is vital: an HOA is not in violation of the 10-day production rule if the homeowner has not first fulfilled the obligation to pay for those copies.

Key Ruling: Justifiable Delays and Lost Records The ALJ found the HOA's explanations for missing documents—specifically the records lost by the previous management company (Adams LLC) and delays due to tax extensions—to be "reasonable and justifiable" (Conclusion of Law #12). The law requires records to be "reasonably available," but it does not penalize a board for documents it cannot find due to a predecessor’s negligence or external delays beyond its control.

The Eye in the Sky: Security vs. Privacy

The second phase of the dispute involved a 360-degree tracking security camera installed by the Petitioners. The board’s concern was twofold: aesthetics and privacy. Board President Kristin Rowlette provided what the court deemed "credible and probative evidence" when she testified that while visiting the neighboring lot, she observed the camera's "eye" literally following her movements (Conclusion of Law #14). She described the device as a "Walmart-style" large black globe that sat in stark contrast to the residential surroundings.

The legal battle turned on the interpretation of CC&Rs Article IX Section 18, which contains a "carve-out."

  • The Petitioners' Interpretation: They argued Section 18 provided a "safe harbor" for all "security devices used exclusively for security purposes," exempting them from Board approval.
  • The Board's Interpretation: The Board—which admitted it only created a specific "security camera addendum" after this dispute began—argued that the Section 18 carve-out referred specifically to sound-emitting devices (like driveway alarms). They maintained that any physical attachment to a structure falls under Article V Section 3 (Architectural Control).

The ALJ agreed with the Board, finding that the camera's ability to track movement into the neighbor's "private area"—including a backyard and hot tub frequented by children—constituted a "nuisance" under the CC&Rs.

The Nuisance Ruling: Aesthetics and Neighbors' Rights

The ALJ's Conclusion of Law #14 proved the final word: the camera was a nuisance because it invaded a neighbor's privacy in a manner that was "offensive and detrimental."

Crucially, the court clarified that a homeowner's belief in a "carve-out" does not grant them the right to bypass the Design Modification Request (DMR) process. The DMR process exists to ensure all structural attachments "harmonize with the existing natural surroundings." By refusing to submit a DMR, the Petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof, regardless of their security concerns.

Final Takeaways for Homeowners and Boards

The dismissal of the petition serves as a sobering reminder that "tactical litigation" is often a circular journey back to the governing documents. To avoid a five-year legal saga, stakeholders should internalize these three lessons:

  1. "Inspection" vs. "Copies" is a Winning Distinction: Under A.R.S. § 33-1805, simply asking for copies is not enough. To trigger a violation, a homeowner must request an inspection or offer to pay the "reasonable cost of reproduction." Procedural errors can sink even the most well-founded records claim.
  2. The DMR is Non-Negotiable: Labels like "security" or "safety" do not provide a blanket exemption from architectural oversight. If you are attaching a device to the exterior of a home, submit the DMR first. Even if the guidelines are vague (as they were in 2024 for Sycamore Springs), the Board's authority over "structural attachments" usually remains intact.
  3. Privacy Trumps Tech: Advanced surveillance tech—specifically tracking cameras—will be scrutinized under traditional nuisance laws. If a device can "track" a neighbor in their backyard, a court is likely to find it "offensive" to a person of ordinary sensibilities.

Ultimately, this case underscores the need for "adult supervision" in community governance. When homeowners and boards spend half a decade parsing the difference between "keeping" and "taking" minutes, the community suffers. Adhering to the spirit of neighborly privacy and the letter of the procedural statutes is the only way to exit the litigation cycle.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Kevin W. Schafer (Petitioner)
  • Patricia A. Lawton (Petitioner)
    Also testified on her own behalf
  • Craig L. Cline (Attorney)
    Udall Law Firm, LLP
    Represented the petitioners
  • Maile L. Belongie (Attorney)
    Udall Law Firm, LLP
    Listed on the service lists

Respondent Side

  • Nikolas Thompson (Attorney)
    MEAGHER & GEER, P.L.L.P.
    Represented the respondent; also appears as Nicholas Thompson in transcripts
  • Kurt M. Zitzer (Attorney)
    MEAGHER & GEER, P.L.L.P.
    Listed on the service lists
  • Kristin Rawlette (Board President and Witness)
    Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, Inc.
    Also spelled Kristen Rowlette in the transcripts
  • Jennifer Pemberton (Community Manager)
    Mission Management
    Also appears as Peton, Penbertton, and Pemberton in transcripts

Neutral Parties

  • Sondra J. Vanella (Administrative Law Judge)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Presiding judge for the hearing
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Other Participants

  • William Custer (Neighbor)
    Neighbor who submitted the formal complaint about the security camera; also referenced as the Kusars/Cusars

Deatta M. Pleasants v. Pinecrest Lake Property Owners Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H021-REL
Agency —
Tribunal —
Decision Date 2025-02-20
Administrative Law Judge SJV
Outcome Dismissed
Filing Fees Refunded —
Civil Penalties —

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Deatta M. Pleasants Counsel —
Respondent Pinecrest Lake Property Owners Association, Inc. Counsel David Onuschak, Esq. (Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, PLC)

Alleged Violations

No violations listed

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

25F-H021-REL Decision – 1252432.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:36:14 (52.5 KB)

25F-H021-REL Decision – 1275219.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:36:20 (128.4 KB)

Briefing Document: Pleasants v. Pinecrest Lake Property Owners Association, Inc.

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the administrative hearing and final decision in the matter of Deatta M. Pleasants versus the Pinecrest Lake Property Owners Association, Inc. (HOA). The core of the dispute centered on Ms. Pleasants’ allegation that the HOA violated community CC&Rs by failing to repair a common area culvert, which she claimed caused her property (Lot 185) to flood during a severe storm in July 2021.

The Respondent HOA countered that the drainage system was constructed in accordance with plans approved by Navajo County in the 1980s and has been properly maintained. The defense’s central arguments were that the July 2021 storm was a “100-year storm,” a weather event that exceeded the system’s “50-year storm” design capacity, and that Ms. Pleasants’ lot is situated within a FEMA-designated regulatory floodway, where flooding during such an event is an expected occurrence.

Expert testimony from Dr. Zachary Barlo, a licensed civil engineer retained by the HOA, was pivotal. Dr. Barlo concluded that the drainage system was constructed in “general substantial conformance” with the original plans, is adequately maintained, and functions as designed. He testified that the feature Ms. Pleasants believed to be a disconnected culvert was, in fact, a roadway hatch pattern on the design plans. Crucially, he affirmed that flooding on Lot 185 would be expected during a major storm event due to its location in the floodway, regardless of culvert improvements.

The Administrative Law Judge ultimately dismissed Ms. Pleasants’ petition. The final decision held that the Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA had violated the CC&Rs. The ruling affirmed that the HOA had maintained the system and that the flooding was a predictable consequence of an exceptionally severe storm impacting a property located in a high-risk flood zone.

1. Case Overview

• Case Number: 25F-H021-REL

• Petitioner: Deatta M. Pleasants, owner of Lot 185

• Respondent: Pinecrest Lake Property Owners Association, Inc.

• Jurisdiction: Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), Phoenix, Arizona

• Presiding Judge: Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella

• Hearing Date: February 4, 2025

• Decision Date: February 20, 2025

2. Petitioner’s Allegation and Testimony

Core Claim

The Petitioner, Deatta M. Pleasants, alleged that the Respondent violated Article II, Section I of the revised 2022 CC&Rs. This section assigns the HOA the “full power and duty to maintain, repair and make necessary improvements in the COMMON AREA,” including underground culverts. The petition asserted, “The association will not repair the culvert (common area) to allow the ditch to drain.”

Central Arguments and Evidence

• The July 2021 Storm: The complaint originated from a single, severe storm in July 2021, which caused significant flooding on Petitioner’s property, Lot 185. Ms. Pleasants testified that while the storm was severe, she believes subsequent flooding was due to a malfunctioning drainage system, not the storm’s magnitude alone.

• Interpretation of Design Plans: Ms. Pleasants asserted that a double-line feature on the original circa 1986 drainage plans represented a proposed culvert. She believed this culvert was intended to connect a roadside ditch to the main regional drainage infrastructure but was improperly installed or left disconnected, causing a blockage and subsequent overflow.

• Observed Conditions: The Petitioner presented photographs from the 2021 storm depicting a 21-foot by 5-foot ditch in front of her property completely full of water and not draining. She argued this demonstrated a functional failure of the system.

• Rejection of Floodway Argument: Ms. Pleasants testified that she was “highly disappointed in the engineering report” and that her lot’s location within a FEMA flood plain “has absolutely nothing to do with the functionality and performance of this storm drain channel that is meant to keep from flooding.”

• HOA Responsibility: The Petitioner maintained that it is the HOA’s “fiduciary responsibility” to remedy the issue by connecting what she believes to be the main drain.

3. Respondent’s Position and Defense

Core Defense

The Respondent HOA’s position was that it has fulfilled its maintenance obligations under the CC&Rs and that the flooding was an unavoidable result of an extreme weather event impacting a property in a high-risk area.

Key Arguments and Testimony

• System Design and Approval: The drainage system was constructed in the mid-1980s based on plans approved by Navajo County. The design standards at the time, and currently, require the system to handle a 50-year storm event.

• Storm Severity: The July 2021 storm was characterized as an exceptional event, a “100-year storm,” that produced approximately three inches of rain within hours. This exceeded the design capacity of the drainage infrastructure.

• FEMA Floodway Designation: A critical element of the defense was that Lot 185 is located within a FEMA-designated regulatory floodway. Testimony established this as the highest-risk flood category, specifically designated to allow for the unimpeded flow of floodwater.

• Maintenance Record: HOA President Sharon Seekins testified that the association periodically inspects and maintains the common area drainage system, including recent improvement projects on the Oklahoma Draw Wash. She noted that under the CC&Rs, individual lot owners are responsible for maintaining the drainage ditches directly in front of their properties.

• Lack of Other Complaints: Ms. Seekins testified that no other homeowners filed formal complaints about the drainage system’s performance following the July 2021 storm.

4. Expert Witness Testimony: Dr. Zachary Barlo

Dr. Zachary Barlo, a Senior Civil Engineer with a PhD, was retained by the Respondent to inspect the drainage system and provide an expert opinion. His testimony was a cornerstone of the Respondent’s case.

Credentials and Experience

• Position: Senior Engineer at Ironside Engineering Development, Inc.

• Education: PhD and Master of Science in Civil Engineering from Oregon State University; undergraduate degree in Civil Engineering from Virginia Tech.

• Licensure: Licensed Professional Engineer in the State of Arizona.

• Expertise: Extensive experience with drainage systems, Navajo County codes, and FEMA regulations.

Inspection and Analysis

Dr. Barlo conducted two field visits in June and December of 2024. His process involved:

1. Reviewing the original circa 1986 construction and drainage plans.

2. Conducting a visual and physical inspection of the as-built infrastructure near Lot 185, including measuring culverts.

3. Speaking with both Ms. Pleasants and HOA representatives to understand the concerns.

Key Findings and Professional Opinion

Finding Category

Dr. Barlo’s Testimony and Conclusions

Conformance with Plans

The existing infrastructure was found to be in “general substantial conformance with the original plan.” Notably, a 24-inch pipe was installed where an 18-inch pipe was specified, which he described as a “betterment to the design” as it increases the capacity to convey water.

The Disputed “Culvert”

The double-line feature on the plans, which the Petitioner believed was a disconnected culvert, is not a culvert. Dr. Barlo identified it as part of the “hatch pattern of the roadway track.” He supported this by noting the absence of design specifications like invert elevations, which are present on all actual culverts shown in the plans.

System Functionality

The drainage system is designed to handle a 50-year storm. The July 2021 storm was “generally believed” to be larger than a 50-year event. He opined that the Respondent has adequately maintained the drainage system and that it is not in a state of disrepair.

Impact of FEMA Designation

Lot 185’s location in a regulatory floodway is highly significant. Dr. Barlo explained this area is designed for “unimpeded discharge” and is expected to have “deeper discharge depths” during major storms.

Conclusion on Flooding

Dr. Barlo stated definitively: “flooding of the area would be expected in this area in large storm events based on the FEMA designation regardless of the culvert improvements.” He testified that the conditions Ms. Pleasants experienced were what he would expect during a 100-year storm event on that specific lot.

5. Hearing Outcome and Judicial Decision

The Administrative Law Judge’s decision, issued on February 20, 2025, ruled conclusively in favor of the Respondent.

Conclusions of Law

• The Judge found that the Petitioner, who bore the burden of proof, failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated Article II, Section I of the CC&Rs.

• The ruling stated, “The credible evidence of record established that Respondent has maintained the underground culverts that were constructed in accordance with the Navajo County approved plans.”

• It was further established that “the underground culverts are functioning as intended.”

Final Determination

The Judge concluded that the flooding experienced by the Petitioner was a predictable and expected outcome given the circumstances: “Unfortunately, Petitioner’s lot is located in a FEMA Floodway and flooding of the area would be expected in large storm events which is exactly what occurred in July 2021, and has not occurred since.”

IT IS ORDERED that no action is required of Respondent in this matter and that Petitioner’s Petition is dismissed.

Questions

Question

Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the CC&Rs during a hearing?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the burden falls on the homeowner to prove by a 'preponderance of the evidence' that the HOA committed the alleged violation. The HOA does not have to prove they are innocent unless they are establishing an affirmative defense.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)

Topic Tags

  • Burden of Proof
  • Legal Standards
  • Procedure

Question

Is the HOA responsible for flooding damage caused by an unusually severe storm?

Short Answer

Generally no, if the drainage system was properly maintained and the flooding was due to the severity of the storm and property location.

Detailed Answer

If an HOA maintains its drainage system according to the approved design plans, it is not necessarily liable for flooding caused by extreme weather events (like a 100-year storm) that exceed the system's design capacity, especially if the home is located in a known flood zone.

Alj Quote

Unfortunately, Petitioner’s lot is located in a FEMA Floodway and flooding of the area would be expected in large storm events which is exactly what occurred in July 2021, and has not occurred since.

Legal Basis

Factual Finding / Liability Standards

Topic Tags

  • Flooding
  • Maintenance
  • Liability

Question

Does the HOA have to upgrade old infrastructure to meet modern standards?

Short Answer

The decision implies no, as long as the system is maintained according to the originally approved plans.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found that the HOA met its obligations by maintaining the system in accordance with the plans approved at the time of construction (late 1980s), which were designed for a '50-year storm,' even if modern severe storms exceed that capacity.

Alj Quote

The credible evidence of record established that Respondent has maintained the underground culverts that were constructed in accordance with the Navajo County approved plans.

Legal Basis

CC&R Interpretation

Topic Tags

  • Maintenance
  • Infrastructure
  • Grandfathering

Question

How much evidence is needed to win a case against the HOA?

Short Answer

A 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning the claim is more probably true than not.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner must provide evidence that has 'superior evidentiary weight' and is more convincing than the HOA's evidence. It is not about the number of witnesses, but the convincing force of the evidence presented.

Alj Quote

A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.

Legal Basis

Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5

Topic Tags

  • Evidence
  • Legal Standards

Question

Can I rely on my own interpretation of engineering plans to prove a violation?

Short Answer

Likely not, if the HOA presents conflicting expert testimony.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the homeowner believed a marking on the plan was a missing culvert, but the HOA's expert engineer testified it was a roadway hatch pattern. The ALJ relied on the expert's interpretation over the homeowner's assumption.

Alj Quote

Dr. Barlow testified that Petitioner’s belief that double lines in the red box on the plans are supposed to be a designated culvert, is erroneous, as those lines are part of the roadway designation.

Legal Basis

Expert Testimony

Topic Tags

  • Evidence
  • Expert Witnesses
  • Dispute Resolution

Question

Is a single incident of failure enough to prove the HOA isn't maintaining common areas?

Short Answer

Not necessarily, especially if the incident was caused by exceptional circumstances.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ noted that the petition was based on a single storm event in July 2021 described as 'exceptional and unusually severe,' and there were no other complaints. This isolated incident was insufficient to prove a failure to maintain.

Alj Quote

Ms. Seekins testified (and Petitioner agreed) that the Petition was filed due to an occurrence from a single storm in July 2021, and that there have been no other complaints to the Board regarding the culverts.

Legal Basis

Factual Finding

Topic Tags

  • Maintenance
  • Enforcement
  • Violations

Case

Docket No
25F-H021-REL
Case Title
Deatta M. Pleasants v. Pinecrest Lake Property Owners Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2025-02-20
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
Office of Administrative Hearings
Agency
Arizona Department of Real Estate

Questions

Question

Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the CC&Rs during a hearing?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the burden falls on the homeowner to prove by a 'preponderance of the evidence' that the HOA committed the alleged violation. The HOA does not have to prove they are innocent unless they are establishing an affirmative defense.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)

Topic Tags

  • Burden of Proof
  • Legal Standards
  • Procedure

Question

Is the HOA responsible for flooding damage caused by an unusually severe storm?

Short Answer

Generally no, if the drainage system was properly maintained and the flooding was due to the severity of the storm and property location.

Detailed Answer

If an HOA maintains its drainage system according to the approved design plans, it is not necessarily liable for flooding caused by extreme weather events (like a 100-year storm) that exceed the system's design capacity, especially if the home is located in a known flood zone.

Alj Quote

Unfortunately, Petitioner’s lot is located in a FEMA Floodway and flooding of the area would be expected in large storm events which is exactly what occurred in July 2021, and has not occurred since.

Legal Basis

Factual Finding / Liability Standards

Topic Tags

  • Flooding
  • Maintenance
  • Liability

Question

Does the HOA have to upgrade old infrastructure to meet modern standards?

Short Answer

The decision implies no, as long as the system is maintained according to the originally approved plans.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found that the HOA met its obligations by maintaining the system in accordance with the plans approved at the time of construction (late 1980s), which were designed for a '50-year storm,' even if modern severe storms exceed that capacity.

Alj Quote

The credible evidence of record established that Respondent has maintained the underground culverts that were constructed in accordance with the Navajo County approved plans.

Legal Basis

CC&R Interpretation

Topic Tags

  • Maintenance
  • Infrastructure
  • Grandfathering

Question

How much evidence is needed to win a case against the HOA?

Short Answer

A 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning the claim is more probably true than not.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner must provide evidence that has 'superior evidentiary weight' and is more convincing than the HOA's evidence. It is not about the number of witnesses, but the convincing force of the evidence presented.

Alj Quote

A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.

Legal Basis

Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5

Topic Tags

  • Evidence
  • Legal Standards

Question

Can I rely on my own interpretation of engineering plans to prove a violation?

Short Answer

Likely not, if the HOA presents conflicting expert testimony.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the homeowner believed a marking on the plan was a missing culvert, but the HOA's expert engineer testified it was a roadway hatch pattern. The ALJ relied on the expert's interpretation over the homeowner's assumption.

Alj Quote

Dr. Barlow testified that Petitioner’s belief that double lines in the red box on the plans are supposed to be a designated culvert, is erroneous, as those lines are part of the roadway designation.

Legal Basis

Expert Testimony

Topic Tags

  • Evidence
  • Expert Witnesses
  • Dispute Resolution

Question

Is a single incident of failure enough to prove the HOA isn't maintaining common areas?

Short Answer

Not necessarily, especially if the incident was caused by exceptional circumstances.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ noted that the petition was based on a single storm event in July 2021 described as 'exceptional and unusually severe,' and there were no other complaints. This isolated incident was insufficient to prove a failure to maintain.

Alj Quote

Ms. Seekins testified (and Petitioner agreed) that the Petition was filed due to an occurrence from a single storm in July 2021, and that there have been no other complaints to the Board regarding the culverts.

Legal Basis

Factual Finding

Topic Tags

  • Maintenance
  • Enforcement
  • Violations

Case

Docket No
25F-H021-REL
Case Title
Deatta M. Pleasants v. Pinecrest Lake Property Owners Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2025-02-20
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
Office of Administrative Hearings
Agency
Arizona Department of Real Estate

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Deatta M. Pleasants (Petitioner)
    Owner of lot 185
  • Larry Rice (Co-owner)
    Present with Petitioner; co-owner of the home
  • Daphna Rice (Co-owner)
    Present with Petitioner; co-owner of the home

Respondent Side

  • David Onuschak (Attorney)
    Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, PLC
    Represented Respondent
  • Sharon Seekins (Witness)
    Pinecrest Lake Property Owners Association, Inc.
    Board President
  • Zachary Barlow (Witness)
    Ironside Engineering and Development, Inc.
    Senior Civil Engineer
  • Ryan J. McCarthy (Attorney)
    Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, PLC
    Listed on the order setting hearing

Neutral Parties

  • Sondra J. Vanella (Administrative Law Judge)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Kenneth M. Halal v. Eagle Crest Ranch Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H045-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-06-26
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome The Petitioner's request was dismissed. The Administrative Law Judge determined that Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof, as the restriction of access to the Townsquare forum was a unilateral decision made by Townsquare, a separate legal entity. The cited statutes and Bylaws regarding due process for violations of Project Documents were found inapplicable because Townsquare and its Terms of Use are not governed by the HOA’s Project Documents.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Kenneth M. Halal Counsel —
Respondent Eagle Crest Ranch Homeowners Association Counsel Alexandra M. Kurtyka

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. §§ 33-1803, 33-1804; Bylaws Article 2.3, 5.2

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner's request was dismissed. The Administrative Law Judge determined that Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof, as the restriction of access to the Townsquare forum was a unilateral decision made by Townsquare, a separate legal entity. The cited statutes and Bylaws regarding due process for violations of Project Documents were found inapplicable because Townsquare and its Terms of Use are not governed by the HOA’s Project Documents.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof, and the cited statutes and bylaw provisions were found inapplicable since the Townsquare platform is not owned or managed by the HOA, and the restriction was imposed solely by Townsquare based on its Terms of Use, which are not HOA Project Documents.

Key Issues & Findings

Due process violation regarding removal from HOA website forum (Townsquare Forum)

Petitioner alleged violation of A.R.S. §§ 33-1803 and 33-1804, and Bylaws 2.3 and 5.2, arguing the HOA failed to provide due process when restricting his access to the Townsquare online forum. The ALJ found the cited provisions inapplicable as the restriction was imposed solely by Townsquare, a third-party entity whose Terms of Use are not Project Documents.

Orders: Petition dismissed because Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the cited statutes or Bylaws.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804
  • Bylaws Article 2.3
  • Bylaws Section 5.2

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Dispute, Due Process, Online Forum, Townsquare, Third-Party Vendor, Project Documents
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • Bylaws Article 2.3
  • Bylaws Section 5.2
  • CC&Rs Article 1 Section 1.36
  • Townsquare Terms of Use

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H045-REL Decision – 1183806.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:24:18 (61.3 KB)

24F-H045-REL Decision – 1186944.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:24:21 (45.9 KB)

24F-H045-REL Decision – 1193702.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:24:24 (171.0 KB)

24F-H045-REL Decision – 1183806.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:08:33 (61.3 KB)

24F-H045-REL Decision – 1186944.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:08:40 (45.9 KB)

24F-H045-REL Decision – 1193702.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:08:55 (171.0 KB)

This summary details the proceedings, arguments, and final decision in the matter of *Kenneth M. Halal v. Eagle Crest Ranch Homeowners Association (HOA)* (No. 24F-H045-REL) before the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Key Facts and Main Issue

The Petitioner, Kenneth M. Halal, filed a dispute petition alleging that the Respondent HOA failed to provide due process when he was removed from the Townsquare Forum (the HOA’s online website forum). The sole issue addressed was whether the Respondent violated Petitioner’s due process rights under A.R.S. §§ 33-1803 and 33-1804 and the HOA’s Bylaws Article 2.3 and 5.2.

Hearing Proceedings and Key Arguments

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) conducted a limited-scope hearing on June 10, 2024. Petitioner Halal represented himself.

Petitioner's Argument: Halal argued that the HOA had previously set a precedent by moderating and controlling the Townsquare Forum, thereby assuming responsibility and requiring it to follow its own project documents, including due process procedures (such as those related to fines and violations under A.R.S. § 33-1803 and Bylaw 5.2), before sanctioning a member.

Respondent's Argument: The HOA argued that the Townsquare platform is a separate legal entity, not owned, operated, or managed by the HOA. Donald Morris, a witness for the HOA, testified that only Townsquare, the platform owner, possesses the authority to restrict user access, not the HOA or its community manager, Associa Arizona. The restriction occurred because Petitioner's postings violated Townsquare's independent Terms of Use (T.O.U.) with content that was defamatory, used profanity, and contained derogatory language. Furthermore, the T.O.U. is not a "Project Document" as defined in the governing CC&Rs, rendering the cited due process provisions (Bylaws 2.3 and 5.2) inapplicable. The Board’s discussion of the matter occurred in executive session because it related to personal information, which is permissible under A.R.S. § 33-1804.

Outcome and Legal Points

The ALJ issued a decision finding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

The ALJ made the following critical findings:

  1. Ownership and Control: Townsquare is a separate and distinct legal entity from the HOA, and the HOA has no control over Townsquare, its T.O.U., or its decisions.
  2. Restriction Decision: Townsquare made the unilateral decision to restrict Petitioner’s use of the forum based on its sole determination that Petitioner violated its T.O.U..
  3. Inapplicable Provisions: Townsquare’s T.O.U. is not a Project Document. Bylaws Article 2.3 (governing membership meeting notice) and Article 5.2 (governing violations of Project Documents and levying fines) were found inapplicable because the HOA had not levied a fine against Petitioner nor alleged a violation of HOA Project Documents.

The Petitioner’s Petition was dismissed.

Questions

Question

Can my HOA be held responsible if a third-party vendor (like a website or app) bans me from their platform?

Short Answer

No, not if the vendor is a separate legal entity that makes its own decisions regarding its Terms of Use.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled that if a platform is a separate legal entity and the HOA has no control over its Terms of Use or decisions, the HOA is not responsible for the vendor's unilateral decision to restrict a user.

Alj Quote

Townsquare is a separate and distinct legal entity from Respondent and Respondent has no control over Townsquare, its Terms of Use, or its decisions.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact / Conclusions of Law

Topic Tags

  • HOA obligations
  • third-party vendors
  • liability

Question

Are the 'Terms of Use' for a community website considered official HOA 'Project Documents'?

Short Answer

No, third-party Terms of Use are not considered Project Documents.

Detailed Answer

The decision clarified that terms set by a third-party vendor do not fall under the legal definition of Project Documents (like CC&Rs or Bylaws), meaning a violation of them is not a violation of HOA rules.

Alj Quote

Townsquare’s Terms of Use is not a Project Document as that term is defined in the CC&Rs Article 1, Section 1.36.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact #18

Topic Tags

  • governing documents
  • definitions
  • online platforms

Question

Does the HOA have to provide notice and a hearing before I am restricted from an online forum?

Short Answer

Not if the restriction is by a third party and no fine is levied by the HOA.

Detailed Answer

The due process requirements (notice and hearing) found in HOA bylaws typically apply when the Board alleges a violation of Project Documents or levies a fine. They do not apply when a third party restricts access based on their own rules.

Alj Quote

The Administrative Law Judge finds that this section is inapplicable to this matter as the Board has not levied a fine against Petitioner, nor has the Board alleged a violation of the Project Documents by Petitioner.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact #18

Topic Tags

  • due process
  • hearings
  • fines

Question

What specifically counts as a 'Project Document' in an Arizona HOA?

Short Answer

The Declaration, Articles, Bylaws, Association Rules, and Architectural Committee Rules.

Detailed Answer

The decision cites the specific definition from the CC&Rs, limiting Project Documents to the formal governing instruments of the association.

Alj Quote

Project Document means this Replacement Declaration, the Articles, the Bylaws, the Association Rules and the Architectural Committee Rules.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact #4

Topic Tags

  • definitions
  • governing documents

Question

Does the HOA Board need to vote in an open meeting to ban a resident from a third-party app?

Short Answer

No, if the decision is made unilaterally by the app provider.

Detailed Answer

If the third-party entity makes the sole determination to restrict a user based on a violation of their Terms of Use, the HOA Board is not taking an action that requires a vote or meeting.

Alj Quote

In this case, Townsquare, a separate legal entity not affiliated with Respondent, made the unilateral decision to restrict Petitioner’s use of the platform based upon its sole decision that Petitioner violated its Terms of Use.

Legal Basis

Conclusions of Law #6

Topic Tags

  • open meetings
  • board voting
  • procedural requirements

Question

What is the burden of proof for a homeowner filing a complaint against their HOA?

Short Answer

Preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) must prove that their claims are more probably true than not. This is the standard evidentiary weight required in these administrative hearings.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

Conclusions of Law #2

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • burden of proof

Question

Does a platform's 'Terms of Use' override the lack of HOA policy on social media?

Short Answer

Yes, the platform's rules apply independently of HOA documents.

Detailed Answer

Even if the HOA doesn't have a specific policy for the platform, the platform's own Terms of Use govern user behavior, and the platform is not governed by the HOA's documents.

Alj Quote

Townsquare is not governed by Respondent’s community documents and its Terms of Use are not Project Documents.

Legal Basis

Conclusions of Law #6

Topic Tags

  • social media
  • rules enforcement
  • jurisdiction

Case

Docket No
24F-H045-REL
Case Title
Kenneth M. Halal v. Eagle Crest Ranch Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2024-06-26
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Can my HOA be held responsible if a third-party vendor (like a website or app) bans me from their platform?

Short Answer

No, not if the vendor is a separate legal entity that makes its own decisions regarding its Terms of Use.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled that if a platform is a separate legal entity and the HOA has no control over its Terms of Use or decisions, the HOA is not responsible for the vendor's unilateral decision to restrict a user.

Alj Quote

Townsquare is a separate and distinct legal entity from Respondent and Respondent has no control over Townsquare, its Terms of Use, or its decisions.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact / Conclusions of Law

Topic Tags

  • HOA obligations
  • third-party vendors
  • liability

Question

Are the 'Terms of Use' for a community website considered official HOA 'Project Documents'?

Short Answer

No, third-party Terms of Use are not considered Project Documents.

Detailed Answer

The decision clarified that terms set by a third-party vendor do not fall under the legal definition of Project Documents (like CC&Rs or Bylaws), meaning a violation of them is not a violation of HOA rules.

Alj Quote

Townsquare’s Terms of Use is not a Project Document as that term is defined in the CC&Rs Article 1, Section 1.36.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact #18

Topic Tags

  • governing documents
  • definitions
  • online platforms

Question

Does the HOA have to provide notice and a hearing before I am restricted from an online forum?

Short Answer

Not if the restriction is by a third party and no fine is levied by the HOA.

Detailed Answer

The due process requirements (notice and hearing) found in HOA bylaws typically apply when the Board alleges a violation of Project Documents or levies a fine. They do not apply when a third party restricts access based on their own rules.

Alj Quote

The Administrative Law Judge finds that this section is inapplicable to this matter as the Board has not levied a fine against Petitioner, nor has the Board alleged a violation of the Project Documents by Petitioner.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact #18

Topic Tags

  • due process
  • hearings
  • fines

Question

What specifically counts as a 'Project Document' in an Arizona HOA?

Short Answer

The Declaration, Articles, Bylaws, Association Rules, and Architectural Committee Rules.

Detailed Answer

The decision cites the specific definition from the CC&Rs, limiting Project Documents to the formal governing instruments of the association.

Alj Quote

Project Document means this Replacement Declaration, the Articles, the Bylaws, the Association Rules and the Architectural Committee Rules.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact #4

Topic Tags

  • definitions
  • governing documents

Question

Does the HOA Board need to vote in an open meeting to ban a resident from a third-party app?

Short Answer

No, if the decision is made unilaterally by the app provider.

Detailed Answer

If the third-party entity makes the sole determination to restrict a user based on a violation of their Terms of Use, the HOA Board is not taking an action that requires a vote or meeting.

Alj Quote

In this case, Townsquare, a separate legal entity not affiliated with Respondent, made the unilateral decision to restrict Petitioner’s use of the platform based upon its sole decision that Petitioner violated its Terms of Use.

Legal Basis

Conclusions of Law #6

Topic Tags

  • open meetings
  • board voting
  • procedural requirements

Question

What is the burden of proof for a homeowner filing a complaint against their HOA?

Short Answer

Preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) must prove that their claims are more probably true than not. This is the standard evidentiary weight required in these administrative hearings.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

Conclusions of Law #2

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • burden of proof

Question

Does a platform's 'Terms of Use' override the lack of HOA policy on social media?

Short Answer

Yes, the platform's rules apply independently of HOA documents.

Detailed Answer

Even if the HOA doesn't have a specific policy for the platform, the platform's own Terms of Use govern user behavior, and the platform is not governed by the HOA's documents.

Alj Quote

Townsquare is not governed by Respondent’s community documents and its Terms of Use are not Project Documents.

Legal Basis

Conclusions of Law #6

Topic Tags

  • social media
  • rules enforcement
  • jurisdiction

Case

Docket No
24F-H045-REL
Case Title
Kenneth M. Halal v. Eagle Crest Ranch Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2024-06-26
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Kenneth M. Halal (petitioner)
  • Margot Castro (witness)
  • Patricia Schell (witness)
    Also referred to as Patricia Shell

Respondent Side

  • Alexandra M. Kurtyka (HOA attorney)
    CHDB Law LLP
  • Mark K. Sahl (HOA attorney)
    CHDB Law LLP
  • Donald A. Morris (board member)
    Eagle Crest Ranch Homeowners Association
    Testified as witness for Respondent; former President of the Board
  • Claudia Oberthier (witness)
    Spelled as 'O B E R T H I E R' during appearance; initially listed as 'Claudia Albert'
  • Salina Watson (property manager)
    Associa Arizona
    Subpoenaed by Petitioner

Neutral Parties

  • Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    ADRE
  • vnunez (ADRE Staff)
    ADRE
    Listed on service list
  • djones (ADRE Staff)
    ADRE
    Listed on service list
  • labril (ADRE Staff)
    ADRE
    Listed on service list
  • mneat (ADRE Staff)
    ADRE
    Listed on service list
  • lrecchia (ADRE Staff)
    ADRE
    Listed on service list
  • gosborn (ADRE Staff)
    ADRE
    Listed on service list

Other Participants

  • Bryan Hughes (witness (subpoenaed))
    Subpoena quashed
  • Ken Humphrey (witness (subpoenaed))
    Subpoena quashed
  • Eli Boyd (witness (subpoenaed))
    Subpoena quashed
  • Dane Gilmore (witness (subpoenaed))
    Subpoena quashed

Robert P Fink & Brittany L Oleson v. Casas Arroyo Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H023-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-05-16
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome Petitioners failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated CC&R Article II Section 1(c). The cited provision was inapplicable because the security gate installation did not involve transferring common area to a public agency or increasing the density of residences (the clause was read conjunctively).
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Robert P. Fink & Brittany L. Oleson Counsel —
Respondent Casas Arroyo Association, Inc. Counsel David Onuschak, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Article II Section 1(c)

Outcome Summary

Petitioners failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated CC&R Article II Section 1(c). The cited provision was inapplicable because the security gate installation did not involve transferring common area to a public agency or increasing the density of residences (the clause was read conjunctively).

Why this result: CC&R Article II Section 1(c) was inapplicable because the sentence regarding improvements and density was written in the conjunctive using the word “and,” meaning the improvement must both be placed upon the common area AND increase the density of residences, neither of which applied to the security gate installation.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of CC&Rs regarding vote threshold for placing improvements on common area.

Petitioners alleged Respondent HOA violated CC&R Article II Section 1(c) by approving the installation of a security gate on the common area using a two-thirds standard of those who voted (resulting in 27 affirmative votes, 69-72% approval rate) when they asserted three quarters (3/4 or 30 votes out of 39 eligible lots) of eligible votes was required for an improvement on the common area.

Orders: Petitioners’ Petition is dismissed; no action is required of Respondent.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
  • CC&R Article II Section 1(c)
  • CC&R Article IV Section 2

Related election workflow tool

Many HOA election disputes start with preventable workflow problems: unclear ballot language, separate-vote issues, quorum tracking, paper/online reconciliation, proxy handling, or incomplete records. HOABallot is a separate platform built to document the voting workflow from notice through certification.

Preview HOABallot election workflows

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H023-REL Decision – 1133251.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:16:36 (51.2 KB)

24F-H023-REL Decision – 1135497.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:16:40 (54.9 KB)

24F-H023-REL Decision – 1168799.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:16:43 (47.6 KB)

24F-H023-REL Decision – 1178674.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:16:48 (136.5 KB)

24F-H023-REL Decision – 1133251.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:03:24 (51.2 KB)

24F-H023-REL Decision – 1135497.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:03:25 (54.9 KB)

24F-H023-REL Decision – 1168799.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:03:26 (47.6 KB)

24F-H023-REL Decision – 1178674.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:03:29 (136.5 KB)

This summary addresses the hearing proceedings, key arguments, and final decision in the matter of Robert P. Fink and Brittany L. Oleson (Petitioners) versus Casas Arroyo Association, Inc. (Respondent), Docket No. 24F-H023-REL, heard before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Sondra J. Vanella of the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). The hearing spanned two dates: January 18, 2024, and April 18, 2024.

Key Facts and Main Issue

The core dispute was whether the Respondent Association violated Article II Section 1(c) of the community's CC&Rs when it installed a security gate at the community entrance. The gate measure passed with 27 "yes" votes and 10 "no" votes, equating to 69% of the 39 eligible votes in the association. The Board, citing security concerns related to criminal activity including human trafficking and drug smuggling, moved forward with the installation, funding the $2,650 gate through general assessment funds without a special assessment.

Petitioner's Argument

Petitioners argued that the security gate constitutes an "improvement placed upon the common area". They asserted that Article II Section 1(c) unequivocally requires approval by "not less than three quarters (3/4) of the eligible votes of the Association" (30 votes out of 39) for such improvements. Petitioners contended the Board improperly utilized an arbitrary standard of two-thirds (2/3) of those who voted, and that the 2/3 standard found in Article IV Section 4 applies only to authorizing a *special assessment* for a capital improvement, not the installation itself.

Respondent's Argument

The Respondent argued that Article II Section 1(c) was inapplicable. They contended that the provision primarily governs the dedication or transfer of common area property to a public utility or agency, and also applies to improvements that "would increase the density of residences on the Properties". Since the gate neither transferred land nor increased density, the 3/4 voting requirement was unnecessary. Respondent further argued that Article IV Section 2 grants the board authority to use general assessment funds to promote the "health, safety, and welfare of the residents," justifying the gate installation for crime deterrence.

Outcome and Legal Rationale

The ALJ determined that Petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof. The ALJ's interpretation centered on the structure and applicability of Article II Section 1(c).

  1. Inapplicable CC&R: The ALJ concluded that Article II Section 1(c) is written in the conjunctive. Therefore, the 3/4 vote is required only when improvements are placed upon the common area and those improvements increase the density of residences.
  2. Gate Does Not Increase Density: Since the security gate did not dedicate or transfer common area property to an outside entity, nor did it increase the density of residences, the ALJ ruled that the 3/4 voting requirement under Article II Section 1(c) was inapplicable to the instant matter.
  3. Authority Found in Article IV: The ALJ noted that Article IV Section 2 grants the Association authority to use general assessment funds to promote the "recreation, health, safety and welfare of the residents".

The ALJ issued a decision dismissing the Petition and ordering no action be required of the Respondent. The record formally closed on May 7, 2024, with the decision issuing on May 16, 2024.

Questions

Question

Who is responsible for proving that an HOA violated the CC&Rs during a dispute hearing?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof to establish the violation.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the burden falls on the homeowner filing the petition to prove that the HOA committed the alleged violation. The standard of proof required is a 'preponderance of the evidence'.

Alj Quote

Petitioners bear the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and (B)(1)

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • procedural requirements
  • evidence

Question

What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean in an HOA hearing?

Short Answer

It means the evidence shows the claim is more probably true than not.

Detailed Answer

This legal standard requires that the evidence presented has superior weight and is convincing enough to incline a fair mind to one side of the issue over the other. It is not necessarily about having a greater number of witnesses.

Alj Quote

A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.

Legal Basis

Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960)

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • evidence
  • definitions

Question

Can I interpret a specific sentence in the CC&Rs in isolation to prove a violation?

Short Answer

No, CC&R provisions must be interpreted within the context of the entire provision.

Detailed Answer

A homeowner cannot cherry-pick a specific clause or sentence to claim a violation. The Administrative Law Judge will look at the entire section to understand the intended scope and application of the restriction.

Alj Quote

One cannot read Section 1(c) of Article II without taking into consideration the context of the entire provision

Legal Basis

Contract Interpretation Principles

Topic Tags

  • CC&R interpretation
  • legal standards
  • context

Question

How does the word 'and' affect the interpretation of restrictions in the CC&Rs?

Short Answer

The word 'and' is conjunctive, meaning clauses it connects must be read together, not as separate independent choices.

Detailed Answer

If a CC&R provision lists restrictions connected by 'and' (e.g., no improvements AND no actions increasing density), it implies the conditions are linked. The ALJ distinguished this from the disjunctive 'or'. In this case, a restriction on improvements was linked to increasing density/transferring land because they were joined by 'and'.

Alj Quote

This sentence is written in the conjunctive. The word 'and' is used to connect the two clauses. It is not written in the disjunctive, as the word 'or' is not part of the sentence.

Legal Basis

Grammatical Interpretation of Contracts

Topic Tags

  • contract interpretation
  • grammar
  • legal standards

Question

Can the HOA use general assessment funds for safety improvements without a special homeowner vote?

Short Answer

Yes, if the CC&Rs grant authority to use assessments for health, safety, and welfare.

Detailed Answer

If the CC&Rs state that assessments are for promoting the recreation, health, safety, and welfare of residents, the Board may use general funds for improvements like security gates without a specific supermajority vote typically reserved for special assessments or land transfers.

Alj Quote

Article IV Section 2 of the 2006 recorded CC&Rs grant authority to Respondent to use the general assessment monies to 'promote the recreation, health, safety and welfare of the residents.'

Legal Basis

CC&R Article IV Section 2

Topic Tags

  • assessments
  • HOA powers
  • safety improvements

Question

Does a CC&R requirement for a 3/4 vote to 'transfer' common area apply to installing a gate?

Short Answer

No, installing a gate is not considered dedicating or transferring land.

Detailed Answer

A CC&R clause requiring a supermajority vote to dedicate or transfer common area to a public agency does not apply to the installation of a security gate, as the gate does not constitute a transfer of land ownership.

Alj Quote

The installation of a security gate does not dedicate or transfer all or any part of the common area to any public agency, authority or utility. Therefore, a three quarters vote is not required.

Legal Basis

CC&R Article II Section 1(c)

Topic Tags

  • voting requirements
  • common area
  • improvements

Question

Does a restriction on increasing the 'density of residences' apply to security improvements?

Short Answer

No, security improvements like gates do not increase residential density.

Detailed Answer

If a voting requirement in the CC&Rs is triggered by actions that 'increase the density of residences,' it does not apply to infrastructure improvements like security gates that have no effect on the number of homes or density.

Alj Quote

Further, the installation of a security gate is not an improvement that increases the density of the residences. Therefore, a three quarters vote is not required.

Legal Basis

CC&R Article II Section 1(c)

Topic Tags

  • density
  • improvements
  • voting requirements

Case

Docket No
24F-H023-REL
Case Title
Robert P. Fink & Brittany L. Oleson v. Casas Arroyo Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2024-05-16
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Who is responsible for proving that an HOA violated the CC&Rs during a dispute hearing?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof to establish the violation.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the burden falls on the homeowner filing the petition to prove that the HOA committed the alleged violation. The standard of proof required is a 'preponderance of the evidence'.

Alj Quote

Petitioners bear the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and (B)(1)

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • procedural requirements
  • evidence

Question

What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean in an HOA hearing?

Short Answer

It means the evidence shows the claim is more probably true than not.

Detailed Answer

This legal standard requires that the evidence presented has superior weight and is convincing enough to incline a fair mind to one side of the issue over the other. It is not necessarily about having a greater number of witnesses.

Alj Quote

A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.

Legal Basis

Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960)

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • evidence
  • definitions

Question

Can I interpret a specific sentence in the CC&Rs in isolation to prove a violation?

Short Answer

No, CC&R provisions must be interpreted within the context of the entire provision.

Detailed Answer

A homeowner cannot cherry-pick a specific clause or sentence to claim a violation. The Administrative Law Judge will look at the entire section to understand the intended scope and application of the restriction.

Alj Quote

One cannot read Section 1(c) of Article II without taking into consideration the context of the entire provision

Legal Basis

Contract Interpretation Principles

Topic Tags

  • CC&R interpretation
  • legal standards
  • context

Question

How does the word 'and' affect the interpretation of restrictions in the CC&Rs?

Short Answer

The word 'and' is conjunctive, meaning clauses it connects must be read together, not as separate independent choices.

Detailed Answer

If a CC&R provision lists restrictions connected by 'and' (e.g., no improvements AND no actions increasing density), it implies the conditions are linked. The ALJ distinguished this from the disjunctive 'or'. In this case, a restriction on improvements was linked to increasing density/transferring land because they were joined by 'and'.

Alj Quote

This sentence is written in the conjunctive. The word 'and' is used to connect the two clauses. It is not written in the disjunctive, as the word 'or' is not part of the sentence.

Legal Basis

Grammatical Interpretation of Contracts

Topic Tags

  • contract interpretation
  • grammar
  • legal standards

Question

Can the HOA use general assessment funds for safety improvements without a special homeowner vote?

Short Answer

Yes, if the CC&Rs grant authority to use assessments for health, safety, and welfare.

Detailed Answer

If the CC&Rs state that assessments are for promoting the recreation, health, safety, and welfare of residents, the Board may use general funds for improvements like security gates without a specific supermajority vote typically reserved for special assessments or land transfers.

Alj Quote

Article IV Section 2 of the 2006 recorded CC&Rs grant authority to Respondent to use the general assessment monies to 'promote the recreation, health, safety and welfare of the residents.'

Legal Basis

CC&R Article IV Section 2

Topic Tags

  • assessments
  • HOA powers
  • safety improvements

Question

Does a CC&R requirement for a 3/4 vote to 'transfer' common area apply to installing a gate?

Short Answer

No, installing a gate is not considered dedicating or transferring land.

Detailed Answer

A CC&R clause requiring a supermajority vote to dedicate or transfer common area to a public agency does not apply to the installation of a security gate, as the gate does not constitute a transfer of land ownership.

Alj Quote

The installation of a security gate does not dedicate or transfer all or any part of the common area to any public agency, authority or utility. Therefore, a three quarters vote is not required.

Legal Basis

CC&R Article II Section 1(c)

Topic Tags

  • voting requirements
  • common area
  • improvements

Question

Does a restriction on increasing the 'density of residences' apply to security improvements?

Short Answer

No, security improvements like gates do not increase residential density.

Detailed Answer

If a voting requirement in the CC&Rs is triggered by actions that 'increase the density of residences,' it does not apply to infrastructure improvements like security gates that have no effect on the number of homes or density.

Alj Quote

Further, the installation of a security gate is not an improvement that increases the density of the residences. Therefore, a three quarters vote is not required.

Legal Basis

CC&R Article II Section 1(c)

Topic Tags

  • density
  • improvements
  • voting requirements

Case

Docket No
24F-H023-REL
Case Title
Robert P. Fink & Brittany L. Oleson v. Casas Arroyo Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2024-05-16
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Robert P. Fink (petitioner)
    Testified on own behalf
  • Brittany L. Oleson (petitioner)
    Also referred to as Brittany L. Olsen
  • Juanita Havill (witness)
    Former HOA board President, Vice President, and Treasurer

Respondent Side

  • David Onuschak (HOA attorney)
    Jones Skelton & Hochuli
  • Tom Hardesty (board president)
    Casas Arroyo Association, Inc.
  • Thomas Ryan (board member)
    Casas Arroyo Association, Inc.
    Current Treasurer
  • Eric Powell (board member)
    Casas Arroyo Association, Inc.
    Also referred to as Erik Powell; testified for Respondent; former President and Secretary
  • Jim Chepales (board member)
    Casas Arroyo Association, Inc.
  • Paula Miller (witness)
    Casas Arroyo Association, Inc.
    Board Secretary
  • Leslie Kramer (HOA attorney)
    Provided legal opinions to the HOA; Affidavit admitted as Exhibit 32
  • Edwin Gaines (HOA attorney)
    Provided legal opinion to the HOA; Declaration admitted as Exhibit 31
  • Michael Shupe (HOA attorney)
    Consulted by the Board regarding the petition
  • Kevin Wallace (former board member)
    Casas Arroyo Association, Inc.
    Former Vice President

Neutral Parties

  • Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Rosalyn Buchas (Border Patrol Agent)
    US Customs and Border Protection
    Author of 2014 report referenced
  • Ben Cummings (Border Patrol Agent)
    US Customs and Border Protection
    Attended 2014 meeting

Other Participants

  • David Steedman (former board member)
    Casas Arroyo Association, Inc.
    Former Treasurer; present as an observer
  • Emily Masta (community member)
    Mentioned in board email communications
  • Jay Deforest (community member)
    Called 2014 Border Patrol meeting
  • Mark Stroberg (community member)
    Attended 2014 Border Patrol meeting
  • Barbara Stoneberg (community member)
    Attended 2014 Border Patrol meeting
  • Steven Sue Archbald (community member)
    Attended 2014 Border Patrol meeting
  • Laura Brown (community member)
    Long-time resident referenced regarding historic gate removal
  • Archerald Brown (community member)
    Long-time resident referenced regarding historic gate removal

SAMEUL T. PAPARAZZO v. CORONADO RANCH COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H011-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-11-22
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof to show the Respondent violated the open meeting statute (A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)). The Board provided open meetings where the management contract discussions and votes occurred, including allowing the Petitioner and other homeowners to comment.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Samuel T. Paparazzo Counsel —
Respondent Coronado Ranch Community Association Counsel Ashley Turner

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof to show the Respondent violated the open meeting statute (A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)). The Board provided open meetings where the management contract discussions and votes occurred, including allowing the Petitioner and other homeowners to comment.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof to establish a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) by a preponderance of the evidence.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of the open meeting statute regarding entering into a contract with a new Community Association Management Company.

Petitioner alleged Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) by canceling the existing community management contract and entering a contract with a new company (Haywood Realty & Investment, Inc.) without allowing open discussion, member comment, motion, and a vote regarding the change and the acquisition of Requests for Proposals (RFPs).

Orders: Petitioner’s Petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Open Meetings, Management Contract, Request for Proposals, Burden of Proof
Additional Citations:

  • ARS 33-1804(A)

Related election workflow tool

Many HOA election disputes start with preventable workflow problems: unclear ballot language, separate-vote issues, quorum tracking, paper/online reconciliation, proxy handling, or incomplete records. HOABallot is a separate platform built to document the voting workflow from notice through certification.

Preview HOABallot election workflows

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H011-REL Decision – 1116173.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:15:21 (111.6 KB)

24F-H011-REL Decision – 1116173.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:01:52 (111.6 KB)

This summary pertains to the hearing in the matter of Samuel T. Paparazzo versus Coronado Ranch Community Association (Docket No. 24F-H011-REL), held on November 13, 2023.

Key Facts and Main Issue

The Petitioner, Samuel T. Paparazzo, alleged that the Coronado Ranch Community Association (Respondent) violated Arizona Revised Statute (ARS) § 33-1804(A)—the planned community open meetings statute—by "entering into a contract with a new Community Association Management Company". Specifically, the Petitioner argued that the Board failed to allow for open discussion and member comment, and did not properly put forth a motion and vote, both when obtaining requests for proposals (RFPs) and when entering into the new contract with Haywood Realty & Investment, Inc. on August 10, 2023. The Petitioner testified that the approved meeting minutes did not reflect a motion and vote for either action.

Hearing Proceedings and Key Arguments

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) noted that the burden of proof rested upon the Petitioner to establish the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Petitioner's Argument: The Petitioner, who attended all board meetings, asserted that there was no formal discussion, motion, or vote recorded for the key steps (RFPs and contract execution) required under ARS § 33-1804(A). He conceded that he was given an opportunity to speak at the crucial August 2023 meeting, but claimed that the only motion put forward and voted upon was to terminate the previous manager (RCP), not to hire Haywood.

Respondent's Argument: Ashley Turner, counsel for the Association, argued that the Association did not violate the statute. Kim Jackson, Board Treasurer, testified that management issues arose due to financial errors (including a $23,000 double payment). She testified that RFPs were obtained by individual board members, discussed, and made available to the community at the open November 2022 meeting and subsequent meetings.

Ms. Jackson credibly testified that the final decision occurred at the August 2023 open meeting after a "lengthy" discussion. At this meeting, both the termination of the old management company and the hiring of Haywood were discussed. The Petitioner was given 10 minutes to speak virtually. Ms. Jackson testified that a unanimous vote was taken to terminate the previous contract and hire Haywood, and that the termination notice detailing the new hiring was read aloud to attendees. She clarified that the lack of reference to the hiring motion in the August minutes was due to the secretary's inadvertent omission.

Legal Points and Outcome

The core legal contention revolved around whether the Association adhered to the requirement that formal action be taken only after discussion and member comment during an open meeting. The ALJ found the testimony of Ms. Jackson regarding the open discussion, member comments (including the Petitioner’s 10 minutes), and the unanimous vote at the August 2023 meeting to be credible.

The ALJ concluded that the credible evidence established that the issues regarding termination, RFPs, and entering into the new contract were discussed and voted on after a motion and member comment.

The Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARS § 33-1804(A). Consequently, the Petition was dismissed.

Select all sources

No emoji found

Loading

24F-H011-REL

2 sources

These sources document an administrative hearing regarding a dispute between Samuel T. Paparazzo and the Coronado Ranch Community Association over alleged open meeting violations. The petitioner contended that the board hired a new management company without proper public discussion, member input, or a formal vote as required by Arizona law. In response, the board treasurer testified that the transition was discussed across multiple open sessions and that the final decision was made during a meeting where the petitioner himself provided verbal testimony. Evidence showed that while the official meeting minutes were occasionally incomplete, the board had made significant efforts to inform homeowners through Facebook and email. Ultimately, the Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, ruling that the association provided sufficient opportunity for member participation before executing the new contract.

What was the final outcome of the HOA dispute hearing?
How did the treasurer defend the board’s decision-making process?
Explain the member’s specific complaints about the new contract.

Thursday, February 12

Save to note

Today • 3:35 PM

2 sources

Video Overview

Mind Map

Reports

Flashcards

Quiz

Infographic

Slide Deck

Data Table

NotebookLM can be inaccurate; please double check its responses.

Select all sources

No emoji found

Loading

24F-H011-REL

2 sources

These sources document an administrative hearing regarding a dispute between Samuel T. Paparazzo and the Coronado Ranch Community Association over alleged open meeting violations. The petitioner contended that the board hired a new management company without proper public discussion, member input, or a formal vote as required by Arizona law. In response, the board treasurer testified that the transition was discussed across multiple open sessions and that the final decision was made during a meeting where the petitioner himself provided verbal testimony. Evidence showed that while the official meeting minutes were occasionally incomplete, the board had made significant efforts to inform homeowners through Facebook and email. Ultimately, the Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, ruling that the association provided sufficient opportunity for member participation before executing the new contract.

What was the final outcome of the HOA dispute hearing?
How did the treasurer defend the board’s decision-making process?
Explain the member’s specific complaints about the new contract.

Thursday, February 12

Save to note

Today • 3:35 PM

2 sources

Video Overview

Mind Map

Reports

Flashcards

Quiz

Infographic

Slide Deck

Data Table

NotebookLM can be inaccurate; please double check its responses.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Samuel T. Paparazzo (petitioner)
    Also appeared as Samuel Gene Everzo; testified on his own behalf.

Respondent Side

  • Ashley Turner (HOA attorney)
    Goodman Law Group
    Counsel for Coronado Ranch Community Association.
  • Kimberly Jackson (board member/treasurer)
    Coronado Ranch Community Association Board
    Appeared as a witness; sometimes referred to as Jim Jackson.
  • Sheree (board member)
    Coronado Ranch Community Association Board
    Director who obtained RFPs.
  • Michelle (board member)
    Coronado Ranch Community Association Board
    Director who obtained RFPs.
  • Cathy / Cassie (board member/secretary)
    Coronado Ranch Community Association Board
    Board member who read documents aloud; secretary who inadvertently left information off minutes.

Neutral Parties

  • Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Also identified as Sandra Vanella.
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • A. Hansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of decision transmission.
  • V. Nunez (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of decision transmission.
  • D. Jones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of decision transmission.
  • L. Abril (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of decision transmission.

Other Participants

  • Erica Martinson (attorney)
    prison law
  • Tony Rosetti (lawist)
    Spelled R O SS KTI.
  • Miss Lee (potential witness)
    Did not testify.
  • Rob Bishop (community manager)
    Renaissance Community Partners
    Son of owner of previous management company; facilitated virtual mic for Petitioner.
  • Tamara Lens (community assistant)
    Renaissance Community Partners
    Sent official meeting notice email.
  • Linda Palmer (homeowner)
    Coronado Ranch Community Association member
    Commented at the meeting.

Clifford S Burnes V. Saguaro Crest Homeowners’ Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H033-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-04-14
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petition, finding that the Respondent HOA did not violate Article XV of the Articles of Incorporation during the dissolution vote. The required 2/3 majority was achieved with 11 votes in favor, and the requirement for signed assent was met by the signatures provided on the ballot envelopes.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Clifford S. Burnes Counsel —
Respondent Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association Counsel John T. Crotty, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Articles of Incorporation, Section XV

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petition, finding that the Respondent HOA did not violate Article XV of the Articles of Incorporation during the dissolution vote. The required 2/3 majority was achieved with 11 votes in favor, and the requirement for signed assent was met by the signatures provided on the ballot envelopes.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of voting requirements for dissolution of the Homeowners Association

Petitioner alleged that the dissolution vote was invalid because the ballots were not signed, and Respondent failed to achieve the 2/3 authorized votes needed, noting only 9 ballots were cast for dissolution. Respondent argued that 11 votes were cast, meeting the 2/3 requirement (10 votes needed), and that signatures on the ballot envelopes satisfied the Article XV requirement for assent given in writing and signed by Owners.

Orders: Petitioner’s Petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Articles of Incorporation, Voting Rights, Dissolution, Burden of Proof, Planned Community
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)

Related election workflow tool

Many HOA election disputes start with preventable workflow problems: unclear ballot language, separate-vote issues, quorum tracking, paper/online reconciliation, proxy handling, or incomplete records. HOABallot is a separate platform built to document the voting workflow from notice through certification.

Preview HOABallot election workflows

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H033-REL Decision – 1035350.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:02:34 (55.1 KB)

23F-H033-REL Decision – 1049512.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:02:39 (100.5 KB)

23F-H033-REL Decision – 1035350.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:54:11 (55.1 KB)

23F-H033-REL Decision – 1049512.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:54:15 (100.5 KB)

This summary details the administrative hearing held before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Sondra J. Vanella in the matter of *Clifford S. Burnes v. Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association* (HOA), Docket No. 23F-H033-REL, on March 30, 2023.

Key Facts and Issue

The Petitioner, Clifford S. Burnes, alleged that the Saguaro Crest Homeowners’ Association violated its governing documents. The single, central issue set for hearing was whether the HOA's vote on December 11, 2021, regarding the dissolution of the HOA, “did not satisfy the voting requirement of Section XV (15) of the Articles of Incorporation”.

Section XV of the Articles of Incorporation requires that the Association may be dissolved with "assent given in writing and signed by Owners representing not less than two-thirds (2/3) of the authorized votes". The parties stipulated that 10 or more votes constituted 2/3 of the authorized votes (out of 15 authorized votes). Petitioner bore the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

Hearing Proceedings and Key Arguments

  1. Petitioner's Argument: Petitioner Burnes argued the vote failed on two main legal points:
  • Insufficient Votes: Petitioner contended that only nine (9) ballots were cast in favor of dissolution, which did not meet the 2/3 requirement. He further asserted that the board improperly declared the motion passed and changed the vote count from nine (announced at the meeting) to eleven (reported in the meeting minutes).
  • Unsigned Ballots: Petitioner argued that the dissolution vote failed because the ballots themselves were not signed, violating Article XV’s requirement for assent "signed by Owners". He also argued that owners of multiple lots should have been issued separate ballots for each vote.
  1. Respondent's Argument: The Respondent (HOA), represented by John T. Crotty, Esq., and through the testimony of HOA President Sarina Martinez, countered that the requirements were satisfied.
  • Vote Count Justified: Ms. Martinez testified that while nine ballots were received for dissolution, two of those ballots belonged to owners who owned two lots each, meaning those two ballots accounted for four votes. Citing the CCNRs (Article 2, Section 2.2 C1), Ms. Martinez confirmed that each owner is entitled to "one vote for each lot owned". This meant the total votes for dissolution were eleven (11), which exceeded the necessary 2/3 threshold (10 votes).
  • Signature Requirement Satisfied: Respondent argued that Article XV does not require the *ballot* itself to be signed. The ballots were distributed as a package with envelopes. Ms. Martinez confirmed that the required signatures, lot number(s), and date were obtained on the envelopes that contained the ballots, thereby satisfying the "assent given in writing and signed" provision.

Final Decision and Outcome

The Administrative Law Judge issued a decision on April 14, 2023, ruling in favor of the Respondent.

The ALJ found that 11 votes were cast on 9 ballots, which represented at least 2/3 of the authorized votes. The ALJ concluded that Article XV "does not specify that the ballot itself must signed," and because the signatures were contained on the envelopes corresponding to the ballots, the requirement for "assent given in writing and signed by Owners" was satisfied.

Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated Article XV of the Articles of Incorporation. Accordingly, the Petitioner’s Petition was dismissed.

Questions

Question

If my HOA requires votes to be 'in writing and signed,' does the ballot itself need a signature?

Short Answer

Not necessarily. If the governing documents do not explicitly specify that the ballot itself must be signed, a signature on the envelope containing the ballot may satisfy the requirement.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ determined that if the Articles of Incorporation require assent 'in writing and signed' but do not specify that the ballot itself must be signed, a signature on the envelope containing the ballot is sufficient compliance. In this case, envelopes with the homeowner's signature, lot number, and date were deemed to satisfy the requirement.

Alj Quote

Article XV of the Articles of Incorporation does not specify that the ballot itself must signed, and in this case, the signatures are contained on the envelopes that held the corresponding ballots, thereby satisfying the language of the charged provision.

Legal Basis

Articles of Incorporation, Article XV

Topic Tags

  • voting
  • ballots
  • signatures
  • governing documents

Question

If I own multiple lots, do I need to submit a separate physical ballot for each lot?

Short Answer

No, unless you can cite specific legal authority or governing documents that require separate physical ballots.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ rejected the argument that separate ballots are required for each vote possessed by homeowners who own multiple lots, specifically noting that the petitioner failed to provide any authority supporting that claim.

Alj Quote

Petitioner further testified that there should have been separate ballots for each vote for homeowners who own two lots. However, Petitioner did not cite to any authority establishing such.

Legal Basis

Lack of citation to authority

Topic Tags

  • voting
  • multiple lots
  • ballots

Question

How are votes counted if some homeowners own more than one property?

Short Answer

Votes are counted based on 'authorized votes' rather than just the number of physical ballots cast. One ballot may represent multiple votes.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ accepted the calculation where fewer physical ballots were cast than the total vote count because some ballots represented multiple votes (one for each lot owned). The decision validated that 9 ballots could validly represent 11 authorized votes.

Alj Quote

In this case, eleven (11) votes were cast on nine (9) ballots, which represents at least 2/3 of the owners authorized to vote.

Legal Basis

Articles of Incorporation, Article XV

Topic Tags

  • voting
  • vote counting
  • authorized votes

Question

Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the rules?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing, the homeowner alleging the violation must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence.' It is not the HOA's job to disprove the allegation initially.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal standards
  • administrative hearing

Question

What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean in an HOA dispute?

Short Answer

It means the claim is more likely true than not.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ defines this standard as proof that convinces the decision-maker that the contention is 'more probably true than not,' or holds the greater weight of evidence.

Alj Quote

“A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”

Legal Basis

Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5

Topic Tags

  • legal definitions
  • evidence
  • standard of proof

Case

Docket No
23F-H033-REL
Case Title
Burnes v. Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association
Decision Date
2023-04-14
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

If my HOA requires votes to be 'in writing and signed,' does the ballot itself need a signature?

Short Answer

Not necessarily. If the governing documents do not explicitly specify that the ballot itself must be signed, a signature on the envelope containing the ballot may satisfy the requirement.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ determined that if the Articles of Incorporation require assent 'in writing and signed' but do not specify that the ballot itself must be signed, a signature on the envelope containing the ballot is sufficient compliance. In this case, envelopes with the homeowner's signature, lot number, and date were deemed to satisfy the requirement.

Alj Quote

Article XV of the Articles of Incorporation does not specify that the ballot itself must signed, and in this case, the signatures are contained on the envelopes that held the corresponding ballots, thereby satisfying the language of the charged provision.

Legal Basis

Articles of Incorporation, Article XV

Topic Tags

  • voting
  • ballots
  • signatures
  • governing documents

Question

If I own multiple lots, do I need to submit a separate physical ballot for each lot?

Short Answer

No, unless you can cite specific legal authority or governing documents that require separate physical ballots.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ rejected the argument that separate ballots are required for each vote possessed by homeowners who own multiple lots, specifically noting that the petitioner failed to provide any authority supporting that claim.

Alj Quote

Petitioner further testified that there should have been separate ballots for each vote for homeowners who own two lots. However, Petitioner did not cite to any authority establishing such.

Legal Basis

Lack of citation to authority

Topic Tags

  • voting
  • multiple lots
  • ballots

Question

How are votes counted if some homeowners own more than one property?

Short Answer

Votes are counted based on 'authorized votes' rather than just the number of physical ballots cast. One ballot may represent multiple votes.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ accepted the calculation where fewer physical ballots were cast than the total vote count because some ballots represented multiple votes (one for each lot owned). The decision validated that 9 ballots could validly represent 11 authorized votes.

Alj Quote

In this case, eleven (11) votes were cast on nine (9) ballots, which represents at least 2/3 of the owners authorized to vote.

Legal Basis

Articles of Incorporation, Article XV

Topic Tags

  • voting
  • vote counting
  • authorized votes

Question

Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the rules?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing, the homeowner alleging the violation must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence.' It is not the HOA's job to disprove the allegation initially.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal standards
  • administrative hearing

Question

What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean in an HOA dispute?

Short Answer

It means the claim is more likely true than not.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ defines this standard as proof that convinces the decision-maker that the contention is 'more probably true than not,' or holds the greater weight of evidence.

Alj Quote

“A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”

Legal Basis

Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5

Topic Tags

  • legal definitions
  • evidence
  • standard of proof

Case

Docket No
23F-H033-REL
Case Title
Burnes v. Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association
Decision Date
2023-04-14
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Clifford S. Burnes (petitioner)
    Also referred to as Clifford (Norm) S. Burnes

Respondent Side

  • John T. Crotty (HOA attorney)
    LAW OFFICES OF COLLIN T. WELCH
  • Esmeralda Sarina Ayala-Martinez (HOA President, witness)
    Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association
    Also referred to as Sarina Martinez or Serena Martinez

Neutral Parties

  • Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    ADRE
  • Tammy I (ALJ)
    Mentioned as presiding over related case

Other Participants

  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
  • labril (ADRE staff)
    ADRE

Carl-Mitchell Smoot v. Los Reyes Homeowners Association Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2222063-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-04-13
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome The ALJ affirmed the Petitioner's position that the HOA's denial of artificial turf violated CC&Rs Section 8.8. The ALJ found that because maintenance was shared and the HOA's CC&Rs cannot contradict the superior McCormick Ranch rules (which allow artificial turf), the denial was improper and the HOA failed to meet the exemption requirements under A.R.S. § 33-1819(B).
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Smoot Carl-Mitchell Counsel Stewart F. Gross, Esq.
Respondent Los Reyes Homeowners Association Inc. Counsel Michael S. McLeran, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1819; CC&Rs Article VIII, Section 8.8

Outcome Summary

The ALJ affirmed the Petitioner's position that the HOA's denial of artificial turf violated CC&Rs Section 8.8. The ALJ found that because maintenance was shared and the HOA's CC&Rs cannot contradict the superior McCormick Ranch rules (which allow artificial turf), the denial was improper and the HOA failed to meet the exemption requirements under A.R.S. § 33-1819(B).

Key Issues & Findings

Architectural disapproval of landscaping plans to install artificial turf

Petitioner alleged Respondent's disapproval of his landscaping plans to install artificial turf violated the CC&Rs and was unreasonable under Arizona law. The ALJ concluded the disapproval violated CC&Rs Section 8.8 because the maintenance responsibility was shared, not exclusive to the HOA, and the HOA's CC&Rs must not contradict McCormick Ranch's Rules, which permit artificial turf.

Orders: Petitioner’s petition is affirmed. Respondent must reimburse Petitioner the $500.00 filing fee. Respondent is directed to comply with the requirements of CC&Rs Section 8.8 going forward.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1819
  • CC&Rs Article VIII, Section 8.8
  • CC&Rs Article 9.4
  • CC&Rs Article 6.2

Analytics Highlights

Topics: artificial turf, landscaping, CC&Rs, shared maintenance, architectural control, McCormick Ranch
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1819
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • CC&Rs Article VIII, Section 8.8
  • CC&Rs Article 9.4
  • CC&Rs Article 6.2

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2222063-REL Decision – 1005074.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-01T22:04:27 (54.0 KB)

22F-H2222063-REL Decision – 1005155.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-01T22:04:30 (6.9 KB)

22F-H2222063-REL Decision – 1023283.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-01T22:04:36 (54.3 KB)

22F-H2222063-REL Decision – 1029871.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-01T22:04:42 (52.1 KB)

22F-H2222063-REL Decision – 1049042.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-01T22:04:45 (175.7 KB)

22F-H2222063-REL Decision – 992691.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-01T22:04:50 (48.6 KB)

22F-H2222063-REL Decision – 992789.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-01T22:04:54 (5.9 KB)

22F-H2222063-REL Decision – 1005074.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:49:14 (54.0 KB)

22F-H2222063-REL Decision – 1005155.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:49:19 (6.9 KB)

22F-H2222063-REL Decision – 1023283.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:49:22 (54.3 KB)

22F-H2222063-REL Decision – 1029871.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:49:25 (52.1 KB)

22F-H2222063-REL Decision – 1049042.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:49:29 (175.7 KB)

22F-H2222063-REL Decision – 992691.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:49:30 (48.6 KB)

22F-H2222063-REL Decision – 992789.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:49:32 (5.9 KB)

The hearing concerned the matter of Carl-Mitchell Smoot (Petitioner) versus Los Reyes Homeowners Association, Inc. (Respondent), conducted before the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). The proceedings took place over two dates: January 25, 2023, and a further hearing on March 29, 2023.

Key Facts and Main Issue

The main issue was whether the Respondent HOA’s architectural disapproval of Petitioner’s plans to install artificial turf in his front yard violated Los Reyes CC&Rs Article VIII, Section 8.8, and was unreasonable under Arizona law. Los Reyes is a sub-association of the McCormick Ranch Property Owners Association ("McCormick Ranch"). Petitioner sought the redesign for water conservation and aesthetic improvement.

Key Arguments

  1. Respondent's Position: The HOA justified the denial primarily based on A.R.S. § 33-1819(B), which allows an association to prohibit artificial turf if it is installed in an area the association is "required to maintain or irrigate". Respondent cited its CC&Rs Section 6.2, which states the HOA "shall maintain the landscaping in the front yards of the Lots". Respondent also argued that its CC&Rs referenced the "growth of turf" (Section 8.8), anticipating only natural grass, and that artificial turf would disrupt the harmony and uniformity of the community, where all front yards consist of natural grass. Additionally, early denials cited the plans as being "conceptual" and lacking vital information.
  1. Petitioner's Position: Petitioner argued that the Los Reyes CC&Rs are silent regarding the prohibition of artificial turf. Petitioner emphasized that the Los Reyes CC&Rs Article 9.4 incorporates the superior McCormick Ranch Restrictions and Architectural Control Criteria, stipulating that Los Reyes’ rules "shall not contradict them". McCormick Ranch criteria explicitly permit artificial turf subject to quality standards and limits (e.g., typically not more than 30% of the front yard area), a condition Petitioner claimed his plan met. Petitioner further argued that the A.R.S. § 33-1819(B) exemption did not apply because maintenance responsibility is shared: while the HOA handles mowing and trimming (Section 6.2), the owner pays for and controls the irrigation water (Section 8.8).

Outcome and Legal Points

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Sondra J. Vanella issued a decision on April 13, 2023, affirming Petitioner’s petition.

The ALJ concluded that Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that the disapproval violated the CC&Rs. Key legal findings included:

  • The maintenance of the front yards is shared between the homeowners (who pay for and control irrigation) and the Respondent HOA.
  • Respondent’s CC&Rs are silent as to artificial turf and do not prohibit it.
  • Los Reyes cannot contradict the McCormick Ranch Rules and Regulations, which permit artificial turf, as mandated by Los Reyes CC&Rs Article 9.4.
  • The ALJ found that the installation of artificial turf, under the circumstances, would not be contrary to the "overall goal of harmony of external design".

The Order required Respondent to comply with the CC&Rs Section 8.8 going forward and to reimburse Petitioner the $500.00 filing fee.

Questions

Question

Can my HOA prohibit artificial turf if the CC&Rs don't specifically ban it?

Short Answer

Likely not. If the CC&Rs are silent regarding artificial turf and do not explicitly prohibit it, the HOA may not be able to enforce a ban, especially if a master association permits it.

Detailed Answer

The Administrative Law Judge ruled that because the HOA's CC&Rs were silent regarding artificial turf and did not explicitly prohibit it, they could not ban it. This was further reinforced because the master association's rules, which the sub-association could not contradict, explicitly permitted artificial turf.

Alj Quote

Although Respondent’s CC&Rs are silent as to artificial turf, they do not prohibit artificial turf and they shall not contradict McCormick Ranch’s Rules and Regulations.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Construction; A.R.S. § 33-1819

Topic Tags

  • artificial turf
  • CC&Rs interpretation
  • architectural requests

Question

Can a sub-association ban artificial turf if the master association allows it?

Short Answer

No, generally a sub-association cannot contradict the master association's rules if its own governing documents prohibit such contradictions.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the sub-association's CC&Rs incorporated the master association's rules and stated they could not contradict them. Since the master association allowed artificial turf, the sub-association could not prohibit it.

Alj Quote

McCormick Ranch allows artificial turf, and Respondent cannot contradict McCormick Ranch’s Rules and Regulations according to Respondent’s CC&Rs Section 9.4.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Section 9.4; Governing Documents Hierarchy

Topic Tags

  • master association
  • sub-association
  • conflicting rules

Question

Does the HOA mowing my front lawn give them the exclusive right to ban artificial turf under state law?

Short Answer

Not necessarily, if the maintenance is shared. If the homeowner is responsible for irrigation and replacing plants, the HOA does not have exclusive maintenance rights to prohibit turf under A.R.S. § 33-1819(B).

Detailed Answer

The HOA argued that because they mowed the lawn, they could prohibit artificial turf under A.R.S. § 33-1819(B). However, the judge found that because the homeowner paid for water and was responsible for keeping plants healthy (shared maintenance), the HOA could not use the maintenance statute to completely ban turf.

Alj Quote

In this case, it is undisputed that Petitioner pays for and can control the irrigation of his property. It is also undisputed that the maintenance of the front yards of the homes within Respondent is shared between the individual homeowners and Respondent.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1819(B); CC&Rs Section 8.8

Topic Tags

  • maintenance responsibility
  • artificial turf
  • state statute

Question

Can an HOA deny an architectural request claiming it disrupts the 'harmony' of the neighborhood?

Short Answer

They can claim it, but a judge may overrule them if the evidence shows the improvement (like artificial turf) wouldn't actually violate the goal of harmony.

Detailed Answer

The HOA denied the request based on the 'overall goal of harmony,' arguing that artificial turf would look different from the natural grass in the neighborhood. The judge reviewed the evidence and concluded that installing artificial turf would not actually be contrary to the goal of harmony.

Alj Quote

The Administrative Law Judge further concludes based on the evidence presented at hearing, that the installation of artificial turf would not be contrary to the “overall goal of harmony of external design” as asserted by Respondent.

Legal Basis

Subjective Standards; Harmony Provisions

Topic Tags

  • architectural control
  • harmony
  • aesthetics

Question

Who has the burden of proof when a homeowner challenges an HOA decision?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) has the burden to prove the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

The decision explicitly states that in these administrative hearings, the Petitioner (the homeowner filing the complaint) bears the burden of proving that the HOA violated its governing documents.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated its CC&Rs Article VIII, Section 8.8.

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal procedure

Question

If I win my case against the HOA, can I get my filing fee back?

Short Answer

Yes, the Administrative Law Judge can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

Upon ruling in favor of the homeowner, the judge ordered the HOA to reimburse the $500.00 filing fee the homeowner paid to bring the case.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent reimburse Petitioner the $500.00 filing fee.

Legal Basis

Administrative Remedy

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • reimbursement
  • penalties

Question

Can the HOA deny my plans for being 'conceptual' if I provided specific details?

Short Answer

No. If the plans include specific information like plant types, numbers, and dimensions, the HOA cannot validly deny them as merely 'conceptual'.

Detailed Answer

The HOA denied the application claiming plans were 'conceptual.' The judge noted the plans contained specific types and numbers of plants, dimensions, and detailed renderings, and ultimately ruled the disapproval was a violation.

Alj Quote

Those plans contain the types and number of plants proposed, and the dimensions and shape of the area of artificial turf, and detailed renderings.

Legal Basis

Reasonableness of Approval Process

Topic Tags

  • architectural plans
  • application denial
  • reasonableness

Case

Docket No
22F-H2222063-REL
Case Title
Smoot Carl-Mitchell v. Los Reyes Homeowners Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2023-04-13
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Can my HOA prohibit artificial turf if the CC&Rs don't specifically ban it?

Short Answer

Likely not. If the CC&Rs are silent regarding artificial turf and do not explicitly prohibit it, the HOA may not be able to enforce a ban, especially if a master association permits it.

Detailed Answer

The Administrative Law Judge ruled that because the HOA's CC&Rs were silent regarding artificial turf and did not explicitly prohibit it, they could not ban it. This was further reinforced because the master association's rules, which the sub-association could not contradict, explicitly permitted artificial turf.

Alj Quote

Although Respondent’s CC&Rs are silent as to artificial turf, they do not prohibit artificial turf and they shall not contradict McCormick Ranch’s Rules and Regulations.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Construction; A.R.S. § 33-1819

Topic Tags

  • artificial turf
  • CC&Rs interpretation
  • architectural requests

Question

Can a sub-association ban artificial turf if the master association allows it?

Short Answer

No, generally a sub-association cannot contradict the master association's rules if its own governing documents prohibit such contradictions.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the sub-association's CC&Rs incorporated the master association's rules and stated they could not contradict them. Since the master association allowed artificial turf, the sub-association could not prohibit it.

Alj Quote

McCormick Ranch allows artificial turf, and Respondent cannot contradict McCormick Ranch’s Rules and Regulations according to Respondent’s CC&Rs Section 9.4.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Section 9.4; Governing Documents Hierarchy

Topic Tags

  • master association
  • sub-association
  • conflicting rules

Question

Does the HOA mowing my front lawn give them the exclusive right to ban artificial turf under state law?

Short Answer

Not necessarily, if the maintenance is shared. If the homeowner is responsible for irrigation and replacing plants, the HOA does not have exclusive maintenance rights to prohibit turf under A.R.S. § 33-1819(B).

Detailed Answer

The HOA argued that because they mowed the lawn, they could prohibit artificial turf under A.R.S. § 33-1819(B). However, the judge found that because the homeowner paid for water and was responsible for keeping plants healthy (shared maintenance), the HOA could not use the maintenance statute to completely ban turf.

Alj Quote

In this case, it is undisputed that Petitioner pays for and can control the irrigation of his property. It is also undisputed that the maintenance of the front yards of the homes within Respondent is shared between the individual homeowners and Respondent.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1819(B); CC&Rs Section 8.8

Topic Tags

  • maintenance responsibility
  • artificial turf
  • state statute

Question

Can an HOA deny an architectural request claiming it disrupts the 'harmony' of the neighborhood?

Short Answer

They can claim it, but a judge may overrule them if the evidence shows the improvement (like artificial turf) wouldn't actually violate the goal of harmony.

Detailed Answer

The HOA denied the request based on the 'overall goal of harmony,' arguing that artificial turf would look different from the natural grass in the neighborhood. The judge reviewed the evidence and concluded that installing artificial turf would not actually be contrary to the goal of harmony.

Alj Quote

The Administrative Law Judge further concludes based on the evidence presented at hearing, that the installation of artificial turf would not be contrary to the “overall goal of harmony of external design” as asserted by Respondent.

Legal Basis

Subjective Standards; Harmony Provisions

Topic Tags

  • architectural control
  • harmony
  • aesthetics

Question

Who has the burden of proof when a homeowner challenges an HOA decision?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) has the burden to prove the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

The decision explicitly states that in these administrative hearings, the Petitioner (the homeowner filing the complaint) bears the burden of proving that the HOA violated its governing documents.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated its CC&Rs Article VIII, Section 8.8.

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal procedure

Question

If I win my case against the HOA, can I get my filing fee back?

Short Answer

Yes, the Administrative Law Judge can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

Upon ruling in favor of the homeowner, the judge ordered the HOA to reimburse the $500.00 filing fee the homeowner paid to bring the case.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent reimburse Petitioner the $500.00 filing fee.

Legal Basis

Administrative Remedy

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • reimbursement
  • penalties

Question

Can the HOA deny my plans for being 'conceptual' if I provided specific details?

Short Answer

No. If the plans include specific information like plant types, numbers, and dimensions, the HOA cannot validly deny them as merely 'conceptual'.

Detailed Answer

The HOA denied the application claiming plans were 'conceptual.' The judge noted the plans contained specific types and numbers of plants, dimensions, and detailed renderings, and ultimately ruled the disapproval was a violation.

Alj Quote

Those plans contain the types and number of plants proposed, and the dimensions and shape of the area of artificial turf, and detailed renderings.

Legal Basis

Reasonableness of Approval Process

Topic Tags

  • architectural plans
  • application denial
  • reasonableness

Case

Docket No
22F-H2222063-REL
Case Title
Smoot Carl-Mitchell v. Los Reyes Homeowners Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2023-04-13
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Carl-Mitchell Smoot (petitioner)
    Los Reyes Homeowners Association, Inc. (Member)
    Former HOA President/Treasurer
  • Stewart F. Gross (petitioner attorney)
    Law Offices of Stewart F. Gross, PLLC

Respondent Side

  • Michael S. McLeran (HOA attorney)
    Childers Hanlon & Hudson, PLC
  • Denise Mueller (board member/witness)
    Los Reyes Homeowners Association, Inc.
    HOA Vice President; ALC Member
  • Dawn Feigert (property manager/witness)
    Trestle Management Group
    Senior Manager at HOA management company
  • Timothy Fischer (board member/witness)
    Los Reyes Homeowners Association, Inc.
    HOA Treasurer; ALC Member
  • Kirk Nelson (board member/witness)
    Los Reyes Homeowners Association, Inc.
    HOA President; ALC Member
  • Jan Greenfield (board member)
    Los Reyes Homeowners Association, Inc.
    Former ARC Chair

Neutral Parties

  • Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
    OAH
    Presided over hearings and issued final decision
  • Louis Dettorre (ADRE Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed in transmission records prior to final decision
  • Susan Nicolson (ADRE Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed in final decision transmission
  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
    OAH
    Presided over initial continuances
  • c. serrano (OAH Staff)
    OAH
    Document processor

Other Participants

  • Valerie (McCormick Ranch Staff)
    McCormick Ranch Property Owners Association
    Contact regarding compliance

Elizabeth, Flint v. Citation Gardens Cooperative #1

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H026-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-04-04
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Respondent, Citation Gardens Cooperative #1, does not meet the statutory definition of a planned community, and therefore, the statute prohibiting the denial of solar panels (A.R.S. § 33-1816) does not apply.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Elizabeth Flint Counsel —
Respondent Citation Gardens Cooperative #1 Counsel Andrew Vizcarra

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1816(A)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Respondent, Citation Gardens Cooperative #1, does not meet the statutory definition of a planned community, and therefore, the statute prohibiting the denial of solar panels (A.R.S. § 33-1816) does not apply.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1816, as the ALJ determined a cooperative's purposes and functions are separate and distinct from those of a planned community, excluding it from the planned community definition.

Key Issues & Findings

Denial of request to install solar panels

Petitioner alleged Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1816(A) by prohibiting the installation of a solar energy device, arguing the Cooperative qualifies as a planned community. Respondent argued it was a Cooperative Corporation, not a planned community, and the statute did not apply.

Orders: No action is required of Respondent in this matter, and the petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1816
  • A.R.S. § 33-1802
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Solar Energy Device, Planned Community Definition, Cooperative Housing, Statutory Applicability, Burden of Proof
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1816
  • A.R.S. § 33-1802
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H026-REL Decision – 1030738.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:00:13 (53.2 KB)

23F-H026-REL Decision – 1046844.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:00:22 (104.2 KB)

23F-H026-REL Decision – 1030738.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:53:11 (53.2 KB)

23F-H026-REL Decision – 1046844.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:53:15 (104.2 KB)

This summary outlines the proceedings, key arguments, and final decision in the matter of *Elizabeth Flint v. Citation Gardens Cooperative #1*, Docket No. 23F-H026-REL.

Key Facts and Hearing Proceedings

The hearing was held on March 21, 2023, before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Sondra J. Vanella of the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). Petitioner Elizabeth Flint appeared on her own behalf, but Respondent Citation Gardens Cooperative #1 did not appear. Respondent's representative, Andrew Vizcarra, informed the Petitioner via email prior to the hearing that he would miss the meeting due to his son's illness, did not wish to reschedule, and asked that the documents Respondent had submitted "stand in his place". The hearing proceeded in Respondent’s absence, with the Petitioner bearing the burden of proof to establish a violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Main Issue and Legal Arguments

The single-issue petition alleged that Citation Gardens Cooperative #1 violated A.R.S. § 33-1816(A) by denying the Petitioner’s request to install solar panels on her townhouse without providing reasons. A.R.S. § 33-1816(A) mandates that a planned community association "shall not prohibit the installation or use of a solar energy device," notwithstanding any contrary provision in the community documents.

Respondent's Position (as submitted): The statute (A.R.S. § 33-1816(A)) did not apply because the Cooperative argued it is governed solely by the Arizona Non-Profit Corporation Act, is not a "planned community," and the Petitioner is a "Member," not a "homeowner".

Petitioner's Argument: The Petitioner maintained that the Cooperative meets the statutory definition of a planned community (A.R.S. § 33-1802). She argued that a planned community and a nonprofit corporation are not mutually exclusive classifications, noting that the statutory definition for a planned community specifically references a "nonprofit corporation". Furthermore, she asserted that she is both a member and an owner/shareholder (owning 1/44th of the corporation). Since the Respondent did not fall into any of the statutory exclusions for a planned community (timeshare, condominium, or real estate development not managed by an association), the Cooperative must comply with the solar panel statute.

Outcome and Legal Decision

The ALJ issued the Administrative Law Judge Decision on April 4, 2023.

The central legal point was whether the Cooperative qualified as a planned community under A.R.S. § 33-1802. The ALJ acknowledged that the definition of a planned community requires the existence of a nonprofit corporation to own and operate the real estate. However, the ALJ concluded that a cooperative does not fall within the definition of a planned community because their "purposes and functions are separate and distinct," despite the statutory definition not expressly excluding cooperatives.

As the Respondent was not found to be a planned community, the Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1816.

The final order was that the petition is dismissed, and no action is required of the Respondent.

Questions

Question

Does the Arizona law protecting a homeowner's right to install solar panels apply to housing cooperatives?

Short Answer

No. The ALJ ruled that housing cooperatives do not fit the legal definition of a 'planned community,' so the solar protection statute (A.R.S. § 33-1816) does not apply to them.

Detailed Answer

In this case, a member of a cooperative sought to install solar panels, citing A.R.S. § 33-1816, which prevents planned communities from prohibiting solar devices. The judge determined that while the definition of a planned community does not explicitly list cooperatives as an exclusion, the nature and purpose of a cooperative are distinct enough that they do not fall under the planned community statutes. Therefore, the cooperative was not legally required to permit the installation.

Alj Quote

Although the definition of a planned community does not expressly exclude a cooperative, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that a cooperative does not fall within the definition of a planned community, as their purposes and functions are separate and distinct.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1802; A.R.S. § 33-1816

Topic Tags

  • solar panels
  • cooperatives
  • planned community definition

Question

What happens if the HOA or respondent fails to attend the administrative hearing?

Short Answer

The hearing proceeds without them.

Detailed Answer

If the respondent (the HOA or Cooperative) has been properly notified of the hearing time and date but fails to appear or request a continuance, the Administrative Law Judge will conduct the hearing in their absence. The petitioner will still present their case, but the respondent loses the opportunity to defend themselves in person.

Alj Quote

Consequently, given that Respondent was properly noticed of the hearing, the hearing proceeded in Respondent’s absence.

Legal Basis

Procedural Due Process

Topic Tags

  • hearing procedure
  • attendance
  • default

Question

Who is responsible for proving that a violation occurred in an HOA dispute?

Short Answer

The petitioner (typically the homeowner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

The person bringing the complaint must provide sufficient evidence to prove their claims. It is not up to the HOA to disprove the claims initially; the homeowner must affirmatively establish that the HOA violated the governing documents or statutes.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated applicable statutes, CC&Rs, and/or Bylaws by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal standards

Question

Is a housing cooperative considered a 'planned community' under Arizona law?

Short Answer

No, a cooperative is legally distinct from a planned community.

Detailed Answer

The decision clarifies that a planned community generally involves real estate owned/operated by a nonprofit where owners are mandatory members. A cooperative, however, is formed to acquire, own, and operate a housing project where members hold shares. The judge ruled that these are separate legal concepts with different purposes, meaning statutes specific to 'planned communities' do not automatically apply to cooperatives.

Alj Quote

Respondent is a nonprofit corporation that was formed for the purpose of acquiring, owning and operating a cooperative housing project… the Administrative Law Judge concludes that a cooperative does not fall within the definition of a planned community…

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1802

Topic Tags

  • definitions
  • cooperatives
  • planned community

Question

What is the standard of evidence required to win a hearing against an HOA?

Short Answer

Preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

To win, the evidence must show that the claim is 'more probably true than not.' This is a lower standard than 'beyond a reasonable doubt' used in criminal cases. It means the evidence must incline a fair mind to one side even slightly more than the other.

Alj Quote

A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.

Legal Basis

Common Law / A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • evidence
  • legal standards

Case

Docket No
23F-H026-REL
Case Title
Elizabeth Flint v. Citation Gardens Cooperative #1
Decision Date
2023-04-04
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Does the Arizona law protecting a homeowner's right to install solar panels apply to housing cooperatives?

Short Answer

No. The ALJ ruled that housing cooperatives do not fit the legal definition of a 'planned community,' so the solar protection statute (A.R.S. § 33-1816) does not apply to them.

Detailed Answer

In this case, a member of a cooperative sought to install solar panels, citing A.R.S. § 33-1816, which prevents planned communities from prohibiting solar devices. The judge determined that while the definition of a planned community does not explicitly list cooperatives as an exclusion, the nature and purpose of a cooperative are distinct enough that they do not fall under the planned community statutes. Therefore, the cooperative was not legally required to permit the installation.

Alj Quote

Although the definition of a planned community does not expressly exclude a cooperative, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that a cooperative does not fall within the definition of a planned community, as their purposes and functions are separate and distinct.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1802; A.R.S. § 33-1816

Topic Tags

  • solar panels
  • cooperatives
  • planned community definition

Question

What happens if the HOA or respondent fails to attend the administrative hearing?

Short Answer

The hearing proceeds without them.

Detailed Answer

If the respondent (the HOA or Cooperative) has been properly notified of the hearing time and date but fails to appear or request a continuance, the Administrative Law Judge will conduct the hearing in their absence. The petitioner will still present their case, but the respondent loses the opportunity to defend themselves in person.

Alj Quote

Consequently, given that Respondent was properly noticed of the hearing, the hearing proceeded in Respondent’s absence.

Legal Basis

Procedural Due Process

Topic Tags

  • hearing procedure
  • attendance
  • default

Question

Who is responsible for proving that a violation occurred in an HOA dispute?

Short Answer

The petitioner (typically the homeowner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

The person bringing the complaint must provide sufficient evidence to prove their claims. It is not up to the HOA to disprove the claims initially; the homeowner must affirmatively establish that the HOA violated the governing documents or statutes.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated applicable statutes, CC&Rs, and/or Bylaws by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal standards

Question

Is a housing cooperative considered a 'planned community' under Arizona law?

Short Answer

No, a cooperative is legally distinct from a planned community.

Detailed Answer

The decision clarifies that a planned community generally involves real estate owned/operated by a nonprofit where owners are mandatory members. A cooperative, however, is formed to acquire, own, and operate a housing project where members hold shares. The judge ruled that these are separate legal concepts with different purposes, meaning statutes specific to 'planned communities' do not automatically apply to cooperatives.

Alj Quote

Respondent is a nonprofit corporation that was formed for the purpose of acquiring, owning and operating a cooperative housing project… the Administrative Law Judge concludes that a cooperative does not fall within the definition of a planned community…

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1802

Topic Tags

  • definitions
  • cooperatives
  • planned community

Question

What is the standard of evidence required to win a hearing against an HOA?

Short Answer

Preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

To win, the evidence must show that the claim is 'more probably true than not.' This is a lower standard than 'beyond a reasonable doubt' used in criminal cases. It means the evidence must incline a fair mind to one side even slightly more than the other.

Alj Quote

A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.

Legal Basis

Common Law / A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • evidence
  • legal standards

Case

Docket No
23F-H026-REL
Case Title
Elizabeth Flint v. Citation Gardens Cooperative #1
Decision Date
2023-04-04
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Elizabeth Flint (petitioner)
    Appeared on her own behalf and testified.

Respondent Side

  • Andrew Vizcarra (respondent representative)
    Tucson Realty & Trust Co. Management Services, L.L.C.
    Did not appear at the hearing; also referenced verbally as 'Andrew Biscara'.

Neutral Parties

  • Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings

Other Participants

  • James Knupp (Acting Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed on the service list for the Order Setting Hearing dated Feb 2, 2023.
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed on the service list for the Decision dated April 4, 2023.
  • AHansen (ADRE Staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of case documents via email address.
  • vnunez (ADRE Staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of case documents via email address.
  • djones (ADRE Staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of case documents via email address.
  • labril (ADRE Staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of case documents via email address.

Kimberly Martinez v. Pineglen Owner’s Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H027-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-03-09
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party on Petition Issues 1 and 3, establishing violations of A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(6) and A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). Respondent was deemed the prevailing party on Issue 2. Respondent was ordered to pay Petitioner $1,000.00 of the filing fee and directed to comply with the violated statutes going forward. No Civil Penalty was imposed.
Filing Fees Refunded $1,500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Kimberly Martinez Counsel —
Respondent Pineglen Owner's Association Counsel —

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(6)
Bylaws, Article IV, Sections 1 and 2
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Outcome Summary

Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party on Petition Issues 1 and 3, establishing violations of A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(6) and A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). Respondent was deemed the prevailing party on Issue 2. Respondent was ordered to pay Petitioner $1,000.00 of the filing fee and directed to comply with the violated statutes going forward. No Civil Penalty was imposed.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove the violation related to the appointed board positions (Issue 2) by a preponderance of the evidence.

Key Issues & Findings

The ballot for the annual election of Board members did not have the proper resident identifiers, lot number or physical address; and the process for write-in candidates was not provided or outlined.

The ballots utilized by Respondent did not contain the address of the person voting, violating the requirement that completed ballots shall contain the name, address, and signature of the person voting.

Orders: Respondent is directed to comply with the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(6) going forward.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(6)
  • Bylaws, Article III, Section 3

At the Annual Meeting the Board President announced 2 new Board positions, but did not follow the electoral process for filling the 2 positions, instead appointed 2 residents to the new positions.

Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated its Bylaws regarding the appointment of two board positions (RV Lot Manager and Architectural Review Manager), as the Board was within its limits to increase membership and fill vacancies until the next election.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • Bylaws, Article IV, Section 1
  • Bylaws, Article IV, Section 2

The Board Secretary refused to comply to Petitioner's request, per ARS 33-1805(A), of supplying copies of HOA records, either electronically or by purchase of hard copies.

Petitioner requested copies in writing and offered to pay, but Respondent refused to provide copies, contrary to the statutory obligation that the association must provide copies of requested records upon request for purchase within ten business days.

Orders: Respondent is directed to comply with the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) going forward.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
  • Bylaws, Article VII, Section 3

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Election, Ballot Requirements, HOA Records Request, Board Appointments, Filing Fee Refund
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(6)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
  • Bylaws, Article IV, Section 1
  • Bylaws, Article IV, Section 2
  • Bylaws, Article III, Section 3
  • Bylaws, Article VII, Section 3

Related election workflow tool

Many HOA election disputes start with preventable workflow problems: unclear ballot language, separate-vote issues, quorum tracking, paper/online reconciliation, proxy handling, or incomplete records. HOABallot is a separate platform built to document the voting workflow from notice through certification.

Preview HOABallot election workflows

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H027-REL Decision – 1027053.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:00:34 (50.0 KB)

23F-H027-REL Decision – 1028006.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:00:38 (57.9 KB)

23F-H027-REL Decision – 1029880.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:00:43 (60.6 KB)

23F-H027-REL Decision – 1040305.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:00:50 (160.5 KB)

23F-H027-REL Decision – 1027053.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:53:20 (50.0 KB)

23F-H027-REL Decision – 1028006.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:53:24 (57.9 KB)

23F-H027-REL Decision – 1029880.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:53:28 (60.6 KB)

23F-H027-REL Decision – 1040305.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:53:33 (160.5 KB)

This concise summary details the proceedings, key arguments, and final decision in the matter of *Kimberly Martinez v. Pineglen Owner's Association*, case number 23F-H027-REL, heard before the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).

Key Facts and Issues

The Petitioner, Kimberly Martinez, a homeowner in the Pineglen planned community, filed a Petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate (Department) alleging three specific violations by the Respondent, Pineglen Owner's Association (HOA). The hearing was held on February 17, 2023, before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Sondra J. Vanella.

The three issues were:

  1. Ballot Identifiers (A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(6)): The annual election ballot lacked proper resident identifiers (address or lot number) for the person voting.
  2. Board Appointments (Bylaws Article IV, Section 1/2): The Board appointed two new voting members (RV Lot Manager and Architectural Review Manager) without following the proper electoral process.
  3. Records Request (A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)): The Board refused to provide copies of HOA records upon Petitioner’s written request and offer to purchase, instead insisting only on in-person viewing.

Key Arguments and Legal Points

Pre-Hearing Matters: The ALJ Denied the Respondent’s Motion to Continue the hearing.

Issue 1 (Ballots):

  • Petitioner's Argument: The ballot did not meet the statutory requirement of containing the name and address of the person voting, as mandated by A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(6).
  • Respondent's Argument: The HOA utilized a door-to-door canvassing method and manually wrote the lot number on the ballot *after* it was received to ensure the voter was a member and to prevent duplication. They argued this process achieved compliance while protecting member privacy.

Issue 2 (Appointments):

  • Petitioner's Argument: Board members must be elected at the annual meeting, and the appointment of two new voting positions violated the electoral process outlined in the Bylaws.
  • Respondent's Argument: Citing Bylaws Article IV, Section 1, the HOA maintained they had the right to increase board membership (within the 3-to-7 member limit) and fill vacancies, with appointees serving until the next election. The positions were formalized from previously ambiguous roles to aid the Board, which is comprised of "elderly volunteers" who struggle to find recruits.

Issue 3 (Records Request):

  • Petitioner's Argument: A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) mandates that associations provide copies of records within ten business days upon written request for purchase, allowing a charge of up to fifteen cents per page. Petitioner specifically stated she fully expected an invoice to be delivered with the copies.
  • Respondent's Argument: The Board offered multiple opportunities for Petitioner to review the documents in person, believing they were making them "reasonably available" in compliance with A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) and their own bylaws. The Respondent admitted they initially failed to interpret the Petitioner's email as a request for *purchase* of copies.

Outcome and Final Decision

The ALJ issued a Decision on March 9, 2023, finding the Petitioner established violations on two of the three complaints by a preponderance of the evidence.

  • Complaint 1 (Ballots): Violation Found. Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(6), as the ballots did not contain the address of the person voting.
  • Complaint 2 (Appointments): No Violation Found. The Board acted within its authority under Bylaws Article IV, Section 1, to increase membership and fill vacancies until the next election.
  • Complaint 3 (Records Request): Violation Found. Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) by refusing to provide copies of the requested records for purchase, contrary to its statutory obligation.

Final Orders:

The Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party on Issues 1 and 3. The ALJ Ordered Res

Questions

Question

Must HOA election ballots include the voter's address?

Short Answer

Yes, unless the community documents explicitly permit secret ballots.

Detailed Answer

According to Arizona law, completed ballots must contain the name, address, and signature of the voter. The only exception is if community documents allow for secret ballots, in which case this information must be on the envelope.

Alj Quote

The ballots utilized by Respondent did not contain the address of the person voting. Therefore, Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(6).

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(6)

Topic Tags

  • Elections
  • Ballots
  • Voting

Question

Can an HOA refuse to provide copies of records and force me to view them in person instead?

Short Answer

No. If a member requests to purchase copies, the HOA must provide them.

Detailed Answer

While an HOA can make records available for viewing, if a homeowner explicitly requests to purchase copies, the HOA is statutorily obligated to provide those copies within ten business days. Simply offering a viewing does not satisfy a request for copies.

Alj Quote

Respondent refused to provide copies of the requested documents and would only allow Petitioner to view the documents, contrary to its statutory obligation. … Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A).

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

  • Records Request
  • Transparency
  • HOA Obligations

Question

Can the HOA Board appoint people to fill vacancies or new positions without holding an election?

Short Answer

Yes, if the bylaws permit the Board to fill vacancies until the next election.

Detailed Answer

If the community bylaws allow the Board to increase its membership within certain limits and fill vacancies, the Board can appoint members to these positions. These appointees generally serve until the next scheduled election.

Alj Quote

The credible evidence of record established that Respondent appropriately appointed these positions and that the positions will appear on the ballot of the next election.

Legal Basis

Bylaws Article IV, Section 1

Topic Tags

  • Board Vacancies
  • Appointments
  • Bylaws

Question

Who has the burden of proof in a hearing against an HOA?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) must prove the violation.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner filing the petition is responsible for providing sufficient evidence to prove that the HOA violated statutes or community documents. The standard is a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning it is more likely than not that the violation occurred.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated applicable statutes, CC&Rs, and/or Bylaws by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)

Topic Tags

  • Legal Standards
  • Burden of Proof
  • Hearing Procedures

Question

How much can an HOA charge for copies of records?

Short Answer

The HOA may charge a fee of no more than 15 cents per page.

Detailed Answer

Arizona statute limits the fee an association can charge for making copies of records requested by a member to a maximum of fifteen cents per page.

Alj Quote

An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

  • Records Request
  • Fees
  • HOA Obligations

Question

If I win my case, will the HOA have to pay a civil penalty?

Short Answer

Not necessarily; civil penalties are discretionary.

Detailed Answer

Even if the HOA is found to have violated the law, the Administrative Law Judge is not required to impose a civil penalty. In this case, despite finding violations regarding ballots and records, the judge decided no penalty was appropriate.

Alj Quote

No Civil Penalty is found to be appropriate in this matter.

Legal Basis

Discretionary

Topic Tags

  • Penalties
  • Enforcement
  • Civil Penalty

Question

Can I get my filing fee reimbursed if the ALJ rules in my favor?

Short Answer

Yes, the ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

If the homeowner prevails on the issues presented in the petition, the Administrative Law Judge has the authority to order the Respondent (HOA) to pay the filing fee back to the Petitioner.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioner the filing fee of $1,000.00, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this Order.

Legal Basis

Administrative Order

Topic Tags

  • Remedies
  • Filing Fees
  • Reimbursement

Case

Docket No
23F-H027-REL
Case Title
Kimberly Martinez v. Pineglen Owner's Association
Decision Date
2023-03-09
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Must HOA election ballots include the voter's address?

Short Answer

Yes, unless the community documents explicitly permit secret ballots.

Detailed Answer

According to Arizona law, completed ballots must contain the name, address, and signature of the voter. The only exception is if community documents allow for secret ballots, in which case this information must be on the envelope.

Alj Quote

The ballots utilized by Respondent did not contain the address of the person voting. Therefore, Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(6).

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(6)

Topic Tags

  • Elections
  • Ballots
  • Voting

Question

Can an HOA refuse to provide copies of records and force me to view them in person instead?

Short Answer

No. If a member requests to purchase copies, the HOA must provide them.

Detailed Answer

While an HOA can make records available for viewing, if a homeowner explicitly requests to purchase copies, the HOA is statutorily obligated to provide those copies within ten business days. Simply offering a viewing does not satisfy a request for copies.

Alj Quote

Respondent refused to provide copies of the requested documents and would only allow Petitioner to view the documents, contrary to its statutory obligation. … Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A).

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

  • Records Request
  • Transparency
  • HOA Obligations

Question

Can the HOA Board appoint people to fill vacancies or new positions without holding an election?

Short Answer

Yes, if the bylaws permit the Board to fill vacancies until the next election.

Detailed Answer

If the community bylaws allow the Board to increase its membership within certain limits and fill vacancies, the Board can appoint members to these positions. These appointees generally serve until the next scheduled election.

Alj Quote

The credible evidence of record established that Respondent appropriately appointed these positions and that the positions will appear on the ballot of the next election.

Legal Basis

Bylaws Article IV, Section 1

Topic Tags

  • Board Vacancies
  • Appointments
  • Bylaws

Question

Who has the burden of proof in a hearing against an HOA?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) must prove the violation.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner filing the petition is responsible for providing sufficient evidence to prove that the HOA violated statutes or community documents. The standard is a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning it is more likely than not that the violation occurred.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated applicable statutes, CC&Rs, and/or Bylaws by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)

Topic Tags

  • Legal Standards
  • Burden of Proof
  • Hearing Procedures

Question

How much can an HOA charge for copies of records?

Short Answer

The HOA may charge a fee of no more than 15 cents per page.

Detailed Answer

Arizona statute limits the fee an association can charge for making copies of records requested by a member to a maximum of fifteen cents per page.

Alj Quote

An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

  • Records Request
  • Fees
  • HOA Obligations

Question

If I win my case, will the HOA have to pay a civil penalty?

Short Answer

Not necessarily; civil penalties are discretionary.

Detailed Answer

Even if the HOA is found to have violated the law, the Administrative Law Judge is not required to impose a civil penalty. In this case, despite finding violations regarding ballots and records, the judge decided no penalty was appropriate.

Alj Quote

No Civil Penalty is found to be appropriate in this matter.

Legal Basis

Discretionary

Topic Tags

  • Penalties
  • Enforcement
  • Civil Penalty

Question

Can I get my filing fee reimbursed if the ALJ rules in my favor?

Short Answer

Yes, the ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

If the homeowner prevails on the issues presented in the petition, the Administrative Law Judge has the authority to order the Respondent (HOA) to pay the filing fee back to the Petitioner.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioner the filing fee of $1,000.00, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this Order.

Legal Basis

Administrative Order

Topic Tags

  • Remedies
  • Filing Fees
  • Reimbursement

Case

Docket No
23F-H027-REL
Case Title
Kimberly Martinez v. Pineglen Owner's Association
Decision Date
2023-03-09
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Kimberly Martinez (petitioner)
    Appeared on her own behalf
  • Christine McCabe (assistant/observer)
    Friend assisting Petitioner due to hearing deficit

Respondent Side

  • Susan Goeldner (HOA secretary/board member/representative)
    Pineglen Owner's Association
    Testified and acted as primary representative for Respondent
  • Warren Doty (HOA VP/board member/representative/witness)
    Pineglen Owner's Association
    Testified on Complaint Number 1
  • Tim Mahoney (HOA treasurer/board member/witness)
    Pineglen Owner's Association
    Observed proceedings; testified briefly on Complaint Number 3
  • Mark McElvain (former HOA president/observer)
    Pineglen Owner's Association
    Observed proceedings
  • Fred Bates (former board member/observer)
    Pineglen Owner's Association
    Observed proceedings
  • Addie Bassoon (HOA president)
    Pineglen Owner's Association
    Did not attend hearing due to personal issues; referenced in testimony/documents

Neutral Parties

  • Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    ADRE
    Recipient of initial correspondence/minute entries
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    ADRE
    Recipient of final decision copies
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of correspondence/decision copies (listed by email attn)
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of correspondence/decision copies (listed by email attn)
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of correspondence/decision copies (listed by email attn)
  • labril (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of correspondence/decision copies (listed by email attn)